Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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

January 2

00:55, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Renebird100

• Renebird100 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:45th Golden Raspberry Awards 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need some reliable sources if I'm gonna have this published. So, tell me when am I gonna publish the page? Renebird100 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Renebird100: As others have told you multiple times on multiple pages and drafts, there are currently not enough sources to move the article to mainspace. Once the event happens, and reliable sources become available, you can add them to the draft and it should be ready for acceptance. Remember, there is no deadline, so there is no need to rush the creation of the page. cyberdog958^Talk 03:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

well the Razzie nominees are about to be announced in 10 days. Renebird100 (talk) 05:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

04:04, 2 January 2025 review of submission by CLWwrites

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

I can't seem to remove a link for the Laurie Bower singers in this article. A reviewer declined my article and cited this link as inappropriate because it doesn't mention Andy Winter...I can't seem to remove it.

I also want to understand about links to newspapers. The link to the Toronto Star takes you to the Aurora Library where the archives are held. I wanted to publish the photo of Andy Winter from that article. The links to international papers are often not archived but I have photocopies of the articles. Can I use them?

Personal photos are there limits to how many you can use?

CLWwrites (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@CLWwrites: Ideally you should be using zero images in a draft. We do not allow fair-use images in drafts and even freely-licenced images are irrelevant to if a draft gets accepted; reviewers are looking at your text and sourcing.

As for offline sources (such as newspapers), you cite them with the relevant citation template (in this case {{Cite news}}) and provide enough metadata to look the source up in an offline archive. (For newspapers, we need at minimum the paper name, paper edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1929), article name, article byline, and the page(s) the story is on.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

05:10, 2 January 2025 review of submission by CSMention269

• CSMention269 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sana Satish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer declined and said that the TOI citation cannot be used as a reference (it lacks WP:V), regardless of the NPOL qualification. While I agree with that, there is no objection to SIGCOV and reliability. I used TOI before on my previous drafts which were accepted. See the citation and tell me can I use it. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@CSMention269: one statement in that paragraph, which is not supported by either of the sources cited, is the subject being from the Kapu caste. I don't know if that's what the comment refers to, though; you probably need to ask the reviewer what specifically they meant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

09:47, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Artennina

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

It would be a help if someone could give me good advise for this article to get a "go" for it. Artennina (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Numerous declines have finally led to rejection, meaning resubmission is not possible, because notability has not been demonstrated. Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein(especially WP:MUSICBIO). If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns raised, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Artennina: every one of the half a dozen declines leading up to the rejection gave you the reasons for the decline, which you should have addressed, but didn't. You've also been requested to disclose your conflict of interest with regard to this subject, but you haven't. In other words, you are blithely ignoring all the requests and suggestions, and now you are here asking for "good advise" (sic). That doesn't quite compute. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

10:30, 2 January 2025 review of submission by PallxviGhosh

• PallxviGhosh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Asoke K. Ghosh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I need help with identifying independent references from my list of sources. May I ask how many references would be required for the above article? Are the ones listed below enough? Do these count as independent sources?

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIV-93PRwXo

- https://www.facebook.com/FrontlistIN/videos/mr-asoke-k-ghosh-president-emeritus-of-fip-is-sharing-his-kind-words-in-his-welc/522393439460355/

- https://news.kiit.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/KIIT-Review-March-2022.pdf

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCrMoWT4DAY

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muSKQjdA0i0

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTph6fbKl3c

PallxviGhosh (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

YouTube and social media are not acceptable references. YouTube is only acceptable if the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@PallxviGhosh: just to clarify, this draft was not declined only because the sources are not independent, it was declined because it is promotional in tone and content. Your job is not to praise the subject, merely to describe him, and to do so by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about him.

Could you also please now respond to the conflict-of-interest query which I posted on your talk page months ago. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

So sorry about not replying to the conflict-of-interest query. I'll do that immediately.

Thanks for this advice, though. It was very helpful. PallxviGhosh (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

11:20, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Andriuspetrulevic

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

Hello, what i need to do? How to change article? Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed as a Terms of Use requirement, see WP:PAID. I see that you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo.

You were left a message at the top of your draft by the reviewer. Please read it, and the pages linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to get information about what I have to correct to get my article published?

I work in this company and with this project, so we want to publish the article. Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Andriuspetrulevic: as already stated, the messages (decline notices and accompanying comments) tell you what you need to correct. TL;DNR = the draft must be supported by and based on reliable sources, and must establish notability by multiple (3+) sources which meet the criteria in the WP:GNG guideline.

Your paid-editing disclosure must be made either on the draft talk page, or on your own user page, or both. In the latter case, you need to use the {{paid}} template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

12:27, 2 January 2025 review of submission by BigDaddyBragg

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

I don't know how you can make this any more notable. This is produced music artist that sites a major website. I have stated before I represent the subject of the article but have only pulled from the current publicly available sites. any help would be appreciated BigDaddyBragg (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any references in the draft. You have some external links, but these are not references. See Referencing for beginners. You haven't established that this person meets the definition of a notable creative professional.

You need to formally disclose your representation, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@BigDaddyBragg: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. There is not even any real claim, let alone evidence, of notability. In fact, "Remy Day's journey into music production began in December 2024" – as in, the month that ended all of two days ago – pretty much shows the opposite of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

12:37, 2 January 2025 review of submission by 103.165.167.63

• 103.165.167.63 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:P. K. Narayana Pillai (born 1910) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm not sure how to edit this article. I have provided all the information requested. Can you please support? 103.165.167.63 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the messages left by reviewers, which describe exactly what needs to happen. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

13:16, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Iliochori2

• Iliochori2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oleh Osypenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to contribute to improve this article Iliochori2 (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

13:24, 2 January 2025 review of submission by 86.61.79.152

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

Wiki page Draft:MCreator keeps getting rejected due to inadequate citations.

The page now cites many 3rd party pages, including books, science papers, and other websites.

Many other similar software pages (for software much less known and with much fewer discussions and sources available) have much fewer references than that and exist on Wikipedia without issues.

What should be done on this page to finally end the rejection cycle that has been going on for 3 years? 86.61.79.152 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to provide the whole url of a Wikipedia article or page. Just place the title in double brackets.

Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, even for years(many articles were created before current processes)- we can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inapprpriate content. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and what it does- you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about this topic and what makes it notable. Being "3rd party" is only part of the issue. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It may sound odd, but there is actually too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The page keeps being rejected for 3 years now. First it was due to unreliable sources, then more were added, it was for overcication. Then it was reduced and now it is an unreliable sources again.

The page cites many sources, including books and journals and 3rd party unrelated websites.

Checking similar software wiki pages, many cite more or less only own pages, so I would like to know what is different about those pages? MCreator is also very widely known software compared to some other pages, so I believe a wiki page for transparent info about it would benefit everyone. Klemen63 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

What could be done to improve the citing. I have used google scholar to try to find as many valid references?

Last rejection did not mention too many references, but rather unreliable.

Could someone help me understand which references are unreliable, so I can try to remove them or find alternatives? Klemen63 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see my message above. I would add that Wikipedia articles(not "pages", an article is a page but not every page is an article) are not for merely providing information.

Let's try it this way- what are the best three(and only three, please) sources in this draft, that show it meets notability? 331dot (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources that may meet notability would be most likely https://en.softonic.com/articles/mcreator-review-minecraft-modding-fun and https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/minecraft-mod-maker/.

But there is no direct 3rd party resource that would collect all knowledge around this topic at one place, thought Wikipedia was meant to collect info from multiple sources into one page? Klemen63 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mere database of information that includes anything and everything. A Wikipedia article doesn't just collect information. It must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a topic.

The Softonic source might be okay, though it's not written by a professional reviewer, they seem to just be a gamer telling what they like about it. The second piece just explains how to use this mod. We need sources that desribe what is significant/important/influential about it- not just a description of its features. If you just want to collate information somewhere, I would suggest a website with less stringent requirements where you can just tell the world about something- like a blogging website. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

14:26, 2 January 2025 review of submission by 2A00:23C4:649C:DF01:9D94:7449:660:C05B

• 2A00:23C4:649C:DF01:9D94:7449:660:C05B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Achromatomaly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The topic I wrote about is incredibly difficult to cite or source as it is a misnomer in of itself, but well known or discussed enough to warrant writing about. As it says in the article it returns almost no results on google scholar, and no academic sources to confirm or deny its existence, though it can be logically denied very easily. 2A00:23C4:649C:DF01:9D94:7449:660:C05B (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

In that case, let me ask where the contents of the draft have come from? Those are the sources you should be citing. If they then turn out to be not reliable, not published, and/or otherwise unacceptable, that may mean that this draft cannot be accepted, but at least we can then properly evaluate this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the same person who wrote the article and asked the question earlier, just under an account now rather than IP

Great, thanks for clarifying. I have those.

Achromatomaly as a term

There isn't an accepted point where the term achromatomaly began. As the article states, it's a medically incorrect term, and doesn't actually exist as a condition. The likely beginning of the term came from the term 'achromatopsia' which is an actual medical condition, and '-anomaly' which obviously refers to an anomaly, but in color blindness refers to anomalous trichromacy such as protanomaly, again a well sourced condition.

Color Blind Simulators and Achromatomaly

Coblis color blind simulator is arguably the most popular, and as you can see on the website it has Anomalous Trichromacies, dichromacies, and 'monochromatic vision', in which it reads 'blue cone monochromacy'. However this simulation, which was originally using ColorJack's Color Matrix software, described that as 'achromatomaly' which as i stated is incorrect. However due to the mix up, Blue cone monochromacy still shows an incorrect filter.

Color Matrix, the original origin of this, has been defunct since an unspecified point, the internet archive tells me the late 2000s to early 2010s. A dysfunctional version is at least visible here: https://web.archive.org/web/20061219231504/http://www.colorjack.com/ on the internet archive.

The reason I consider this worthy of an article at least is the fact that this isn't a small issue. Pilestone is probably the 2nd biggest company for creating color blind glasses, behind enchroma, and even their website uses this faulty simulation https://pilestone.com/pages/color-blindness-simulator-1, and they call themselves 'color blind experts'. In google search this turns over a million results but only 15 google scholar results, as is seen here:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Achromatomaly

In comparison, Achromatopsia returns just over 2 million results, but 11,600 google scholar results, over 400 times more in ratio of academic reports to google results:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=achromatopsia

Additionally, online communities, namely reddit, have largely been tricked into thinking this condition exists as well. Obviously as no website like wikipedia has a page explaining the 'condition' or clearing that it doesn't exist, it allows it to become more popular and infiltrate the internet more.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ColorBlind/search/?q=achromatomaly&cId=e586d65e-c2f3-4e3a-88f3-6f9e91dc4354&iId=cf2e9180-e8a2-4568-8aad-7d66124ddf56

A youtube channel put together a well made essay debunking the condition, however many of the claims on there are now impossible, for example, the colorjack website was previously viewable through the internet archive, now it only shows HTML and no interface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYZ00B5O_VQ

I find this topic quite difficult to properly source as well... it doesn't exist? But it's enough of a phenomenon to warrant an article. Actually previously the wikipedia article on "Color Blindness" back in july actually included achromatomaly in the article, before being removed, which is still viewable on the history. OrcaTsu (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If you can't source it, then you can't have an article. And you can't use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah yeah makes sense, can I keep it in draft state at least until i can find a good amount of sources for it OrcaTsu (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Drafts don't get deleted unless they're repeatedly rejected (not declined) or they haven't been edited in six months. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Great that clears it all up thank you so much OrcaTsu (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

18:41, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Mayursonar331

• Mayursonar331 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Elementis SoftTech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

getting decliened Mayursonar331 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Please see the message left by the reviewer. You also must formally disclose your relationship with the company, see your user talk page for instructions . I note that you say you personally created and own the copyright to the company logo. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It was declined because it is nothing like a Wikipedia article. An article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about the company in reliable sources, cited to those sources: see WP:42. What the company says or wants to say is almost completely irrelevant: 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.

More generally: 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. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

18:55, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Pskkannan02

• Pskkannan02 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Pskkannan02/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been trying to upload my invention in wikipedia for the past 1 month and my article is rejected after several changes too , I really need assistance in uploading my article , Power division theorem is invented by me in 2018 and is a very powerful theorem and has been added in many university syllabus too , I really wanted to upload this as many students will find it easier to learn about it and people worldwide can witness the theorem Pskkannan02 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your invention. You should use social media for that. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

19:56, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Kristin Ann Johnson

• Kristin Ann Johnson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lightspeed DMS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I get a rejected submission reversed? This was not ever intended to be an ad. Lightspeed DMS has been around for 40 years and has a unique history that is often asked about. Kristin Ann Johnson (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

You appeal to the rejecting reviewer, or show us a gross violation of policy by the reviewer. I don't see that here. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they consider to be their own history; articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You should use your company website to tell the history of your company. Wikipedia wants to know what others say is the history of your company.

Press releases don't do that, and Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors read it too. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

20:18, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Tzachg

• Tzachg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Paul Schmitt, Skateboard Designer & Engineer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission was declined because it does not demonstrate that the subject qualifies for an article. In the submission I linked to an article about the subject in a surf media outlet I assumed was reputable, as well as the subject's entry on the Skateboarding Hall Of Fame page.

I am unclear as to whether these are deemed invalid forms of substantiation, if they are deemed valid but insufficient in quantity, or if they are deemed invalid due to a formatting issue? Thanks. Tzachg (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I fixed your post, you need the "Draft:" portion. You list as a reference "All information in this article sourced from interviews with Paul Schmitt between 2019 and 2024". This is unacceptable. Interviews are primary sources and you have not provided a way to verify their content. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

21:01, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Slim8029

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

I am in the process of finalizing my article. I am aware some statements do not have citations. Before submitting the article for review, should I (1) leave everything in that I would like to have in the article (2) strip out some items that could never have even an implied citation (3) be severe and strip out anything without a citation? Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't have a citation should be removed. See WP:BACKWARD; you should have the citations first, not look for one after the fact. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

January 3

00:11, 3 January 2025 review of submission by TheTechie

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

I am an experienced editor but inexperienced with making pages (proven by the fact that all of my articles created have been deleted), so I decided to make a new draft for a subject that I thought should be included in Wikipedia. However, my draft has been declined, and I have a couple of questions: 1. How might I improve the page's notability? 2. How might I find sources (Google really isn't helping me here)? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @TheTechie:! Notability is a characteristic of the topic rather than the Wikipedia article, so it is not possible for us as editors to improve the notability. What we can do, provided the topic is in fact notable, is improve the sourcing by adding reliable and wholly independent sources. Articles should mainly be built by reading reliable, independent and secondary sources and adding information based on what is in those sources, and not by writing the draft/article text first and then trying to find sources to support that text. I hope this makes sense! --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea I understand that, I was only writing what I could find in sources. This is my fourth/fifth declined/deleted page and I really am having trouble making sense of this feedback and how to improve. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechie, has anyone linked you to WP:42 yet? I find it to be a less overwhelming version of 'what to look for in a source'. Generally you need three sources that match all three criteria in WP:42, which then establishes notability. Are you focusing on a particular kind of article? All I could find was one that was deleted for NOTNEWS, so I'm wondering if your stumbling block is the article type - e.g. do you usually work on current events, or is it more of a variety? StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@StartGrammarTime No, no one ever has. Both my previous attempts at creating articles were deleted and were current events (in hindsight I see why now, I archived at least one of them and they only have 4-5 sources). Thank you for providing me with the page, but now I am confused how I would find old newspapers/sources which allow me to paint a picture of the route's history. The "finding sources" links don't help, and a Google search only provides sources from a 2020s project. TWL provides absolutely nothing. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

01:40, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Thadhi Dhamsith

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

Why It Isn't Pulished Thadhi Dhamsith (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it is not suitable as an article. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thadhi Dhamsith: As the reviewer noted in their rejection, nothing in your page shows that you are notable to have an article written about you. The page is closer to a resume or social media page, which is not what wikipedia is for, than an encyclopedic article. cyberdog958^Talk 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

03:51, 3 January 2025 review of submission for Kat Tatz

I am requesting assistance to help create the Wikipedia page for Kat Tatz, an established artist, and to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, verifiability, and neutrality. My primary goal is to ensure that the page is accepted and not declined, and I am seeking guidance to confirm that it fully complies with Wikipedia's standards. I would appreciate any feedback or recommendations to improve the content, particularly in areas related to adherence to guidelines, neutrality, and citation quality.

I have done my best to follow Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines to the best of my ability, making sure that the article is free from bias or promotional language. I want to make sure that the article reflects Kat Tatz’s accomplishments in an accurate, neutral, and verifiable way, without sounding like an advertisement. If there is anything further I can do to make sure the article is accepted and meets Wikipedia’s standards, I would be grateful for any advice or edits. Additionally, if there are any steps I can take to expedite the creation process or to ensure the article progresses smoothly through review and approval, I would appreciate any insight on that as well. Thank you for your time and assistance in reviewing this draft. 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennerTatz (talk • contribs)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kat Tatz

@JennerTatz: this draft was declined because it doesn't show that the subject is notable. There are two relevant notability guidelines you need to consider, the general WP:GNG and the special WP:NARTIST one. The former essentially requires significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. The latter, significant career achievements. Please study both guidelines and consider whether you can demonstrate, with clear evidence, that the subject satisfies one or the other. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing:Thank you for the information! I have reviewed the comments, and I understand the concerns raised regarding notability and self-promotion. In response, I made several key changes to improve the submission and better adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.

What I Changed:

1. Added More Independent Sources: I incorporated additional sources, including reputable news outlets such as Channel 13 Las Vegas, Las Vegas Weekly, and Vegasmagazine, which provide independent coverage of Kat Tatz’s work and achievements. This helps ensure that the article reflects her recognition in the art world and covers her impact beyond self-representation.

2. Minimized Self-Promotion: I reworded several sections to reduce the focus on personal biography and exhibition details, shifting the emphasis toward her recognition in public venues and media coverage. I’ve worked to remove any language that could be construed as self-promotion, instead focusing on her external validation from critics, curators, and media sources.

3. Clarified Career Achievements: I highlighted her success in the “Made in Vegas” art competition and her work being displayed alongside renowned artists. I’ve aimed to demonstrate her professional accomplishments and how her work is recognized by others in the art community, in line with the guidelines for notability.

I also wanted to address any concern about my relationship with the subject of the article. While I do know Kat Tatz personally, I have made every effort to ensure that this article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and maintains objectivity. However, if there are still concerns about neutrality due to this connection, I am open to working with an editor to further minimize any potential bias.

Additionally, Kat Tatz’s work deserves recognition not only for her artistic achievements but also in light of her contributions as a female artist in the Las Vegas art scene. As part of the “Women in Red” initiative, which highlights the accomplishments of women artists, I believe Kat’s career aligns with this cause, especially as she continues to break barriers in a traditionally male-dominated art world. Her presence in prominent locations and exhibitions is a testament to her standing as a respected artist, and I would appreciate any further guidance on how to incorporate this aspect into the article.

Thank you for your time and consideration. JennerTatz (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@JennerTatz: WikiProject Women in Red has laudable aims, which I fully support (FWIW), but new articles published in pursuit of those objectives still have to meet the same notability etc. standards as any other article. There is also no need to mention that project or otherwise reflect it in the article contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

05:55, 3 January 2025 review of submission by 2409:40C2:605A:3199:4517:9B3E:7B5B:204E

• 2409:40C2:605A:3199:4517:9B3E:7B5B:204E (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Elementis SoftTech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

pls help me with this article i want to publish it as newbi here pls give me proper guidance it will be very helpful

2409:40C2:605A:3199:4517:9B3E:7B5B:204E (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you are Mayursonar331, please log into your account when editing.

Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for your business, we have zero interest in what you want to tell the world about your "technology solutions company". We almost exclusively want to know what third parties, especially independent and reliable secondary sources, have said about your business and what makes it worthy of note. Find such sources, summarise their coverage, and cite them as your references. You will end up with a completely different draft from the current one, and might actually have a chance of getting it published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

09:43, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Zoe Sharma

• Zoe Sharma (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Era Joshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To get permission for submitting a draft. May I submit Draft:Era Joshi again for review ? Zoe Sharma (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The first step in appealing a rejection is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. Click the word "talk" next to their name in the rejection notice. To be allowed to resubmit it, you must indicate that you can (or have) fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the reviewers.

You have one source, which is insufficient. If you cannot find at least three appropriate sources to summarize, this person would not merit a Wikipedia article. I will add that the award you mention would not confer notability on this person as there seems to be no article about the award itself(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I am one of the rejecting reviewers. There is not even one source that shows notability, because the only source in the draft ([1]) is paid promotion, neither independent nor secondary and not even reliable. You have previously added multiple copies of the same promotional piece, for instance [2] (which is from Republic World, never a reliable source), [3], and [4]. These are not different sources, they are the same source (and again, it is a source that does not count towards showing notability). Back in November, you added references to sources that did not exist (I spent considerable time searching for them), and to sources that exist but don't mention Joshi. And all this is why I rejected your draft. As far as I am concerned, no, you have wasted so much time for reviewers that you can't resubmit the draft now. --bonadea contributions talk 10:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zoe Sharma My rejection also still stands, for the same reason as @Bonadea. Sorry, there is nothing more you can do here. qcne (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

13:50, 3 January 2025 review of submission by NovaExplorer37

• NovaExplorer37 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fazlija (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why has my article been declined i mean i took hours for this draft and it directly gets declined! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NovaExplorer37. Biographies on Wikipedia can only exist if the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, see Wikipedia:Notability. For musicians, the requirements are laid out at WP:NMUSICIAN. The criteria listed there can be demonstrated by using reliable sources, see WP:Reliable sources. Note that blogspot blogs, discogs (WP:DISCOGS) and LastFM (WP:LASTFM) are not considered reliable sources. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

the thing there is a wiki article about him but only in german Click here to see article by Fazlija in german. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

this website confuses me alot like what the hell is criteria WP:MUSICIAN what is all this i dont understand anything about this website like i did almost the same article over and over again and they all get deleted by my best work like i even follow the rules and still some admins delete it like this should be sued NovaExplorer37 (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @NovaExplorer37, sorry this has been a frustrating experience for you. Wikipedia is complicated. For new editors, writing an article is the hardest task they can do. It would be like performing in an orchestra when you've only just started to play a musical instrument. Sounds like a bad idea, doesn't it?

Why not make improvements to existing articles for a few weeks to get used to our policies and guidelines. There's suggested edits to be found on your personal Wikipedia Homepage. qcne (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

the articles that are in the homepage are more confusing then making a article like i dont firstly know any of then and second of all all of them are mostly private to edit NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Not the Wikipedia homepage, your personal homepage at Special:Homepage.

In any case, and please do not take offence, but I feel you do not quite have the competence yet to edit Wikipedia if you are struggling this much. Perhaps editing is not for you, and you should do something else, or come back in a few years? @NovaExplorer37 qcne (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

why should i come back in a few year what sense does it make? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You may have developed the maturity and competency to contribute constructively. qcne (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

well i made another new music (album) draft this is i think on of reliable sources ive used and so i was questioning if any admin could go check it out? (if the sources are not good and get declined i’ll try my best to find many as i can) (::

Best Regards and Love To All @NovaExplorer37 NovaExplorer37 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Right now, im editing the mainpage as yall said i should do for the tip! thanks again (: NovaExplorer37 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on, say, the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

oh wow NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@NovaExplorer37: if that German article has sources that could be used to support this draft, you can cite them here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

it probably will still get deleted.. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

NovaExplorer37 Be aware of no legal threats. I understand frustration, but threats don't help you. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

its confusing and mostly hard to understand NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

NovaExplorer37 You said "this should be sued", policy says you cannot say that. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

k? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

14:28, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Notsam1

• Notsam1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Order-5 heptagonal tiling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To those who may see this, I'm not sure why this draft was denied on grounds of notability when the sources for the page have been used in others (my draft is simply a continuation of the Order-5 series, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order-5_hexagonal_tiling), and furthermore the topic of order-5 polyhedras have been accepted on the wiki, so to some extent it is, well, notable. Any assistance helps... Notsam1 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Notsam1 It could be that those article articles are not appropriate either- see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Though wouldn't/isn't every article quality checked by staff before submission, I don't see how my reasoning would plateau there (unless if I am missing something) Notsam1 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Notsam1 No, not everthing is checked, either now or in the past. This submission process has not always existed, and is usually voluntary. We don't have a "staff", this is entirely volunteer driven. The Wikimedia Foundation has staff(identified with (WMF) in their usernames) but they only participate here in a limited fashion. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I think this draft could probably be accepted if you converted those external links into references, @Notsam1, if it helps. qcne (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

16:30, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Hamir samanta

• Hamir samanta (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tamluk Royal Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why every time it placed in draft after submission Hamir samanta (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hamir samantha Becuase you have not addressed the concerns raised; it has now been rejected, meaning it won't be considered anymore. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

16:39, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Sturdybeats!

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

I was wondering why my article submission for review was declined. Sturdybeats! (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the message left by the reviewer; one big reason is that the references need to be properly formatted, see Referencing for Beginners. Note that to be notable for being nominated for a Grammy he needs to have been specifically named as a nominee, not merely worked on a nominated album/for a nominated artist.

Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the problems already stated, this article looks mostly, if not entirely, generated by AI/LLM. It reads like an LLM, detects with a high probability of being from an LLM, and the only reference provided is from ChatGPT, an LLM. English Wikipedia has no interest in content written by AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

17:26, 3 January 2025 review of submission by UpendraPT

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

Can you guide me to write a proper changes or article to publish a page? UpendraPT (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

What's your association with this company? 331dot (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I know the meaning and solution for this ? "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified" UpendraPT (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please don't make a new thread for every post, just edit this existing thread. The solution is to gather independent reliable sources and then summarize what they say, showing how this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

17:42, 3 January 2025 review of submission by LeGoldenBoots

• LeGoldenBoots (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cultural impact of The Shining (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding the comment on my page, should I make an entirely new section or just rewrite the page in a way that doesn't condense it into a list? Some of the references outline certain filmmaker's opinions on the film and how it impacted their style of filmmaking. I also found some new references that outline certain filmmakers that have been affected by the film here:

https://filmstories.co.uk/features/the-shining-why-do-filmmakers-love-to-reference-stanley-kubricks-horror-classic/
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-lasting-impact-of-stanley-kubricks-the-shining/
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/how-did-sam-fuller-and-the-shining-shape-lynne-ramsay/
https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/steven-spielberg-favorite-movies/guardians-of-the-galaxy-from-left-zoe-saldana-chris-pratt-2014-walt-disney-studios-motion/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/movies/the-shining-doctor-sleep.html

I'm just wondering on what the best move would be for this article because I feel like there's two different ways it could go. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

18:19, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Alpceliko

• Alpceliko (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Yeditepe university science fiction club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I ask why it is declined? Thank you. Alpceliko (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It was not declined it was rejected the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alpceliko: Draft:Yeditepe University Science Fiction Club wasn't merely declined, it was rejected outright, for lack of any evidence of notability. To be frank, even individual university faculties/departments aren't usually notable, so how do you expect a student club to be? It would have to be quite an extraordinary club, to receive significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, TV channels, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

19:13, 3 January 2025 review of submission by 176.234.88.115

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

why 176.234.88.115 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

22:41, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Therguy10

• Therguy10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Big Bad Wolf: The Wolf's Revenge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told this article is WP:TOOSOON, which I understand. However, another article, Rapterra, makes me wonder if there is a way I can make it work. In addition, another very similar coaster, Phoenix Rising, was accepted into the database, so I know that this coaster model can be notable. (TBBWTWR has a deep history to go along with it too!) So I was just wondering that if I could gather enough sources to prove how notable this coaster is, could it be accepted? Thanks!

(Note: I tried to reply to the editor who gave me my initial feedback, but failed to ping them until I manually had to do it hours later in the source code; hence why I'm asking here) Therguy10 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Therguy10. Neither Phoenix Rising (roller coaster) nor Rapterra was ever submitted through AFC, and it's possible that one or both would not have been accepted. Phoenix Rising appears to have many more citations than your draft - unsurprisingly, since it is actually open - though I haven't looked at their quality. Rapterra looks to me as if it also has only routine coverage, but again I haven't looked closely.

It's not about number of sources, but about their quality: specifically, does each one meet all three of the criteria in WP:42?

As always, we assess each draft against the standards, not against other articles. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I see. I may still give it a go, as I do believe that it is notable enough. But it may be best to wait a little while. Thanks for your help. Therguy10 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

January 4

00:47, 4 January 2025 review of submission by 96.227.67.98

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

I’m struggling to understand what I need to do to have this page approved. I believed that the topic—the work of renowned psychologist Derek Hook—and the sources I used to develop the page met all the requirements. However, it seems like I’m missing something important, and I could really use some support to get through this last hurdle. Thank you for your help! 96.227.67.98 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the reviews on his books and the commentary that followed the incident in which he was involved are good sources and might be evidence of notability. However, this solid sourcing is drowned in a lot of primary sources (many references are from works published by Hook himself, which should only be used very sparsely) and less reliable sources like tweets and university profiles. Pointing out three best sources that follow WP:GOLDENRULE could help future reviewers assess notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

02:11, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Cnevers

• Cnevers (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Carter Nevers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It won’t submit the first box it says error Cnevers (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you attempted to submit another user's userpage (User:United States Man) instead of your draft (Draft:Carter Nevers). Also, I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Autobiography if you want to create that article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

05:20, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Babbarakali

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

Please explain why my contributions to this page are being declined. This page is for a village which exists but does not have a page dedicated for it yet. The demographic facts mentioned are from sources published by the government of India. The biographies mentioned on the page reference historical texts which go into depth regarding the subjects mentioned. Babbarakali (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Babbarakali: if this draft is about a human settlement, it should be about that, and no other subjects. There should be no 'biographies' in it at all. And in any case, our definition of 'notable residents' is ones who have Wikipedia articles, which none of the ones mentioned in your draft seem to do.

Other than that, you've resubmitted the draft, so you will receive feedback when it is reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

06:45, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Chuhwakgeorge

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

I need help in creating the above page as I am a new editor, how to add up links and secondary sources. Chuhwakgeorge (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Chuhwakgeorge: drafts must be based on reliable published sources, which must be cited as references (inline, in the case of living people). You must also show that the subject meets our notability requirements, typically per the WP:GNG guideline. Your draft cites no sources.

You can find pretty much everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

06:55, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Porpisith

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

He's a LD Entertainment KH's CEO and film director from Cambodia. Porpisith (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Porpisith: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Not all CEOs and directors merit articles. Directors need to be shown to meet the definition of a notable creative professional; CEOs would need to be shown to meet the more general notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

08:25, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Sarah Paula Roberts

• Sarah Paula Roberts (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Blake Lively (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have edited parts which might have been biased. This is a very neutral edit. Please publish it as a person has negative qualities along with its positive ones so that viewers have a clear conscience. Sarah Paula Roberts (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I have edited parts which might have been biased. This is a very neutral edit. Please publish it as a person has negative qualities along with its positive ones so that viewers have a clear conscience. Sarah Paula Roberts (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sarah Paula Roberts: this help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process. The Blake Lively article is almost 20 years old. If you need help with that (or any other aspect of Wikipedia editing in general), you can ask at the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

In case your question is about User:Sarah Paula Roberts/sandbox, where you have written a section of an article, it is still unacceptable for Wikipedia. It is so negative in tone that it is a borderline violation the policy on biographies about living people, it coontains personal opinions, and it has no sources. I see that an IP user (presimably you – don't forget to log in!) has posted the same two paragraphs to Talk:Blake Lively. That is the place where you can suggest changes to the article, since the article itself is semi-protected. But you need to explain that it is a proposed new addition to the article, you can't just dump the text there without explanation. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

11:56, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Stephan dasa

• Stephan dasa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hareesh Mohanan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Stephan dasa (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Indeed @Stephan dasa. Did you have a question about that? Verifiability is the key policy on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

12:57, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Stephan dasa

• Stephan dasa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hareesh Mohanan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Stephan dasa (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stephan dasa Please do not create multiple topics about the same draft. Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Stephan dasa The key word you need to attend to is "adequately". IMDB is not an acceptable reference. Times of India is not reliable in many cases, but only contains a passing mention of Hareesh Mohanan. I'll leave a further comment on the draft, but why did you not ask the declining reviewer to explain their rationale? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

13:08, 4 January 2025 review of submission by NEWMOONFilmpro

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

This is my second wikipedia article. When I submitted it the notification says it'll take up to 2 month so after I sent in my first article I went ahead and started my second draft and submitted it probably too quickly. You are rejecting while I am editing though and not giving me enough time to finish. NEWMOONFilmpro (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NEWMOONFilmpro, if you get unblocked please only submit for review once you have finished editing the draft and you are happy for it to be reviewed by a reviewer. It's rather like telling a teacher "Why did you mark the homework I gave to you, it was only half finished?".

I would also really recommend reading our policies on Wikipedia:Notability since both drafts you submitted were not showing evidence of notability yet. qcne (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@NEWMOONFilmpro I have looked at the request you made in the edit history that it be not reviewed, and have "unsubmitted it" in order to help you, assuming your block is appealed successfully. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: the OP is Aleshia Battle, and as far as I can see, was created with that name five hours ago. NEMOONFilmpro is a chimaera, because they first created their user page at that title.

Aleshia Battle, new editors who immediately try to create an article often have a frustrating and disappointing experience. Would you enter a tournament when you only just picked up a tennis racket for the first time? 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. --ColinFine (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

14:04, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Sophia2030

• Sophia2030 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Damola Ayegbayo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a COI on the article but need assistance for another reviewer because two editors, intended to accept it including an administrator that later advised me to Resubmit it after I provided 3 sources to prove its Notability at the Tea house. Sophia2030 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sophia2030 Do you have a simple WP:COI or do you need to declare under WP:PAID, please? I see yiu have declared the COI already, thank you. I will ask ther paid editing question on your user talk page shortly. Please answer it.

This draft has been rejected Before it can be considered further you need to ask the rejecting reviewer if they will consider lifting their rejection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent:, Thank you for your guide, the editor has lifted the rejected on the draft. Sophia2030 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sophia2030 I'm pleased that your efforts have borne fruit. I hope the subject of the draft is notable. Excellence of referencing is the fundamental way of proving this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Timtrent:, Thank you once again, I have adjusted the reference as adviced. Sophia2030 (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

14:55, 4 January 2025 review of submission by 2603:7080:B400:D721:41B2:8A36:91A2:C3CB

• 2603:7080:B400:D721:41B2:8A36:91A2:C3CB (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Miral Kruh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Redacted) The information contained in this submission is not accurate. Please delete any and all records of this submission. Thank you. (Redacted) 2603:7080:B400:D721:41B2:8A36:91A2:C3CB (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

We can delete it from the public, but we cannot delete "any and all records"; only an oversighter can do that, see WP:OVERSIGHT for instructions. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I've requested oversight. qcne (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in that draft that requires suppression. Primefac (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be deceptive. Something seems awry with this request. I agree with Primefac that there is nothing revealed in this draft that might require oversight (I am not an Oversighter, but I often report the need for it to those who perform this service), nor is there in any other contributions of the creating editor. Of there is mischief afoot, might not the mischief maker be the IP reporter? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It is/was an unsourced draft that gave zero indication that there is any notability. Regardless of the motivations of the IP, there really isn't anything to do, either to the draft or any of the involved parties (at least until G13 rolls around). Primefac (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

16:12, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Opnicarter

• Opnicarter (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sukoon (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The first submission of my draft was declined but the Draft was fully referenced and it was all with Reliable sources as the sources i have provided are their articles also have in Wikipedia. I have fix some errors in References and Resubmit the draft. Can anyone tell that is the Draft is now correct and ready? Opnicarter (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This ain't the place to ask for reviewers. Be patient. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

19:42, 4 January 2025 review of submission by 2407:D000:503:2A06:357C:5E8B:BFCA:D7A3

• 2407:D000:503:2A06:357C:5E8B:BFCA:D7A3 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:About pakistan best journalist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you make it non promotional I tried hard 2407:D000:503:2A06:357C:5E8B:BFCA:D7A3 (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if we could, this is an essay, which we do not accept. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Your draft is an opinion piece that bears no resemblance to an neutrally written encyclopedia article. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

20:40, 4 January 2025 review of submission by GeorgiosTzaralis

• GeorgiosTzaralis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • I can't submit for review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"{{subst:submit}}" doesnt work There is no publish for review button https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%CE%9A%CF%85%CE%BA%CE%BB%CE%BF%CF%80%CF%85%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C_%CE%B6%CE%B9%CF%81%CE%BA%CF%8C%CE%BD%CE%B9%CE%BF_%CE%BD%CE%AC%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BF GeorgiosTzaralis (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @GeorgiosTzaralis, that is the Greek Wikipedia, a separate project. This is the English Wikipedia. Templates that work on the English Wikipedia may not work on the Greek Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for you asnwer. What should I do in order to get my article reviewed? I can't find anything on Greek Wikipedia... GeorgiosTzaralis (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @GeorgiosTzaralis.It's unlikely anybody here can tell you. It may be that the Greek Wikipedia does not have a process like AFC. Certainly there is currently no Greek page linked to WP:AFC. I suggest you ask at el:Βικιπαίδεια:Βοήθεια χρηστών. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

January 5

00:41, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Coreymo

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

Can someone assist with getting the article approved and published Coreymo (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves and their books. Please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

11:28, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Naveedahmed14700

• Naveedahmed14700 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lofi Biosphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i think there is much reference in this article as it is a new channel Naveedahmed14700 (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Naveedahmed14700: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been declined, and is now awaiting speedy deletion. It is purely promotional, with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

12:26, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Pedrohcs8

• Pedrohcs8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mobilygen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to create this article for two months and got it declined for notabilty policies, something that was true about my sources at first, now i switched all to government sources, the company itself (which could be the reason) and a VentureBeat press release. I would like to know if this article is being declined by any of my sources or the notability of the company itself, as it has very little news coverage. Pedrohcs8 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Pedrohcs8: the sources are the evidence of notability, so in that sense those two are the same thing. Primary sources do not establish notability, and this includes the company itself, any press releases etc. material it puts out, as well as most government sources. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (mainly print and broadcast media) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If it has "little news coverage" that is a strong indicator it is too soon for an article about it. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

14:02, 5 January 2025 review of submission by LemmaMe

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

Hi! Could you please suggest which sections or elements of the Trinetix page draft need improvement to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines? Your guidance would be helpful. Thank you. LemmaMe (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

LemmaMe What is the general nature of your conflict of interest?

The draft just summarizes the routine activities of the company and tells its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

17:45, 5 January 2025 review of submission by King George Henry

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

Hello I need understand Moodle king Charles son? King George Henry (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@King George Henry: I don't know what you're asking, but your draft was declined because it is blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

22:14, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Visualartiste

• Visualartiste (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Night Riders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm just wondering what sources I have used that are not reliable here? I have used information from the book itself and comments made from the author himself in interviews. Visualartiste (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, those are not appropriate. Interviews are not an independent source, and the book itself is only useful for certain information as a primary source. An article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the book, showing how it is a notable book. For a book, that is usually reviews by professional reviewers. 331dot (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Visualartiste. 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) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

22:21, 5 January 2025 review of submission by Greenotter24

• Greenotter24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hal Oskarsson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

is the issue the lack of sources or that the person is not notable enough? it would be great too get clarification Greenotter24 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please disclose your connection with this person, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. I see that you took an image of them.

The issue is that the sources you have do not establish that they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

January 6

00:46, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 94.192.23.171

• 94.192.23.171 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emmanuel Kofi Nkansah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Emmanuel_Kofi_Nkansah

I dont know why this keeps being declined. There are no other sources to add. The record is as accurate as it can get. I do have pictures of his diplomatic passport to add to enrich content but I have looked at other bios and this is the same as theirs. I have referenced external sources but it keeps getting declined?

I disagree with the reasons supplied for the rejection. Check the sources and you will find his name in there. He was a Deputy Minister. Records are very very difficult to come by but those I could get my hands on I have referenced and noted. I will be updating this with his passport and resubmitting but it is unfair to reject based on your reasons submitted.

I can be reached on (Redacted).

Many thanks.

Derek 94.192.23.171 (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There is unreferenced information which needs to be supported.

Some of your citations don't seem to support anything, eg. ref #1 comes after this person's name, and is a newspaper cutting – what is that meant to verify? Similarly, ref #4 apparently supports the statement that this person ran a post office, and to support that you are citing a source that gives the said post office's contact details and opening hours – how does that verify anything other than that such a post office exists?

Also, many of your references are links to other Wikipedia articles. You cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia.

In short, the referencing is a mess, and the draft was correctly declined.

And no, we have no need for pictures of this person's passport. In fact, it is quite inappropriate to upload personal documents like that to Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

01:04, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31

• 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gladiator Film Series Duration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gladiator (2000) we have 155 minutes & 171 minutes. Gladiator II (2024) we have 148 minutes. Gladiator III (2026) we have 169 minutes.

2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

01:14, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31

• 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gladiator Film Series Duration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gladiator III film is 169 minutes. 2001:D08:2181:895F:1:0:94E1:6B31 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a question about your draft? cyberdog958^Talk 05:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. Wikipedia does not host original research, nor is it a collection of data. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about a topic, and little else. Unless you can find several articles (in reliable sources) specifically about the durations of Gladiator films, this is a non-starter. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

03:55, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:56B:3FFF:DB0C:EDCB:E6CD:207C:43CA

• 2001:56B:3FFF:DB0C:EDCB:E6CD:207C:43CA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Muhammad Irfan-Maqsood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Muhammad Irfan-Maqsood is well documented in all Iranian media, has been invited twice to national Iranian TV Channel and and is among the three non-Iranians who are listed by the vice president of Iran office as most talented non-Iranian in Iran. Please check the updated references in draft. 2001:56B:3FFF:DB0C:EDCB:E6CD:207C:43CA (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

05:59, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Huythedev

• Huythedev (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nguyen Binh Khiem High School for the gifted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking the time to review my draft. I am eager to improve it and ensure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Could you kindly point out the specific errors or areas needing improvement? For example, if there are issues with neutrality, sourcing, formatting, or content depth, please let me know. Your feedback is invaluable, and I’m committed to making the necessary corrections. I appreciate your assistance in helping me refine this article. Thank you! Huythedev (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Huythedev: this draft was declined for lack of evidence that the subject is notable. The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG. That tells you what sort of sources we would need to see. (Note, however, that the vast majority of schools are not notable, so if you struggle to find sufficient sources, it may be that they simply don't exist.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the notability guidelines, but I wanted to ask if there could be any exceptions for schools with strong local recognition or specific achievements that may not be covered by traditional sources. Is there a possibility for schools like mine to still be considered notable under such circumstances? I would appreciate any advice or suggestions on how to proceed. Thank you for your time! Huythedev (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Huythedev: no, there can be no exceptions, every organisation must satisfy WP:ORG. If appropriate source aren't available, then the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

08:00, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Diane Nik

• Diane Nik (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Irakoze Ariane Vanessa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From all drafts I created, none has been approved. How can I write this article so that it can be approved and published? Kindly help. Diane Nik (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Diane Nik: you need to be a bit more specific than asking how to write an acceptable draft. This draft was most recently declined for insufficient evidence of notability. The relevant guidelines that you need to satisfy are either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR ones; study them, and provide evidence that either one is met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

09:02, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Gyzouka

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

it is already in Georgian and now we are simply publishing it in English https://ka.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E1%83%A1%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9A%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9B%E1%83%9D%E1%83%9C_%E1%83%9E%E1%83%90%E1%83%95%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98%E1%83%90%E1%83%A8%E1%83%95%E1%83%98%E1%83%9A%E1%83%98 Gyzouka (talk) 09:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gyzouka: this draft has been rejected outright, so clearly you're not publishing it here. Each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project. An article existing in one version has no bearing on its acceptability in another. To be included in the English-language Wikipedia, a subject must meet our notability etc. requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

09:18, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Managementfirestone

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

how do you get the actor page Hung Wins up? Managementfirestone (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Managementfirestone: we have no 'actor pages', but it may be possible to publish an article on this actor if you can demonstrate that they meet either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR notability guideline.

IMDb is not a reliable source.

You also must write in a neutral, non-promotional tone.

While you're here, could you please explain the meaning of your username? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Would this work as a neutral tone?

"

Hung Wins is a Vietnamese-American actor, producer, and entrepreneur, best known for his roles in the television series Bosch: Legacy (2022), Lodge 49 (2018), and This Is Us (2016). He has also appeared in films such as As Luck Would Have It (2021) and Drug Warz. Wins brings a cultural perspective rooted in his heritage of Vietnamese, Chinese, and French descent. He is fluent in Vietnamese, which influences both his personal life and professional work.

Born in a Red Cross refugee camp, Wins immigrated to the United States in 1994 and settled in the Kings Gate area of Sharpstown, Houston, Texas, an environment marked by economic challenges and crime. His early experiences have informed his dedication to his career and his work as a producer and entrepreneur.

In addition to his work in entertainment, Wins has a background in martial arts. He holds a blue belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu from Macaco Gold Team and a red belt in Muay Thai under Cyborg of Chute Boxe. He applies the discipline and focus gained from martial arts to his career and other ventures.

Academically, Wins graduated with high honors from the University of Houston with a B.A. in Psychology. He later earned a Master's in Positive Psychology from Indiana Wesleyan University and is pursuing a second Master's degree in counseling, with the goal of obtaining LPC licensure in Texas.

Wins is also involved in youth development and real estate, focusing on creating opportunities for young people and contributing to his local community. In his personal life, he enjoys writing, cooking, and spending time in nature. He owns a country property in Wharton, Texas, which serves as a retreat for relaxation and reflection." Managementfirestone (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I've cited every TV show primetime slot he has been in along with the exact media coverage and press and articles hes been in how does this not satisfy the conditions for " Entertainers

Shortcuts

1. • WP:ENT
   • WP:ENTERTAINER
   • WP:NACTOR
   • WP:NMODEL For guidelines on musicians, ensembles, composers, and lyricists, see Wikipedia:Notability (music). This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if:
   1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
   2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

Managementfirestone (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

"Would this work as a neutral tone?" Absolutely NOT and it has zero sources. Theroadislong (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Managementfirestone.

Quick summary to writing a successful article about Hung Wins:

1. If you have any connection to him, read and abide by WP:COI. If you are in any way employed or paid in connection with writing this, you must follow the process in WP:PAID.

2. Find reliable independent sources that show that he meets either the criteria in WP:NACTOR or those in WP:GNG. Sources do not have to be in English, but they must be reliably published. Ignore almost anything written, published or commission by Wins or his associates, or based on interviews with him or press releases: Wikipedia is basically not interested in what he and his associates say or want to say. see WP:42.

3. If you can't find at least three such, give up.

4. If you can, forget every single thing you know about Wins, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

10:35, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Hans Muller 90

• Hans Muller 90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ideoon.ch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I wanted to ask way me wiki page has bin declined? Hans Muller 90 (talk) 10:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hans Muller 90: your draft (such as it is – a tag line and an external link) was declined because it is in German, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload it in English? And then on German on German wiki page? Hans Muller 90 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hans Muller 90: this is clearly not a viable article draft, regardless of the language. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

13:49, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Keiraphillips

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

Is there any suggestions you have to improve notability? Keiraphillips (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keiraphillips: only to say that the notability criteria for academics are enumerated at WP:NACADEMIC, and you need to find the necessary evidence to show that one or more of them is met. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Keiraphillips Notability cannot be improved. A subject either is notable or is not notable. The only thing that can be improved is the demonstration and verification of any notability by dint of excellence of referencing.

This draft was rejected and will not proceed further unless you appeal to the rejecting reviewer and justify why they should consider overturning the rejection. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

15:52, 6 January 2025 review of submission by SKELETRAP

• SKELETRAP (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • SKELETRAP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my page was declined

SKELETRAP (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@SKELETRAP Please do not submit blank submissions. I am somewhat unclear regarding the reason you feel you need to ask about this. The decline rationale could not be more clear. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

There's actually some confusion here about the user's userpage (since tagged for deletion) and their blank sandbox, which is likely secondary to the issue of an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. I've tried discussing more on the user's talk page. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

16:08, 6 January 2025 review of submission by UpwindPlaning

• UpwindPlaning (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yare and Bure One Design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article keeps getting rejected.

It has better sources than many other articles but it keeps being rejected for poor sources. If you look at existing articles for sailing boats eg. RS200 dinghy, you will see that much of what is written is uncited, but this article is fully cited. If it's the quality of the sources that matters, what qualifies as a good source?

In the reliability article it says that self published sources (in this case class association websites) can be used as a source of information when talking about themselves, but elsewhere it says sources must be "independent of the subject", which is conflicting information.

Or perhaps it's because people see it's been rejected so many times and so simply refuse to accept it.

Please help. UpwindPlaning (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

UpwindPlaning Please see other stuff exists. There are many, many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia that have gotten past us, for varying reasons(the biggest being that the submission process has not always existed). This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you could identify these other articles you have seen, we can take action so other editors like you don't see them. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@UpwindPlaning: the apparent conflict may be because high-quality self-published sources can be used to verify information, but they cannot be used to establish notability; for the latter, sources must (in most cases) be entirely independent of the subject.

We don't decline drafts because they have been declined previously already; that would mean that you would have to get a draft accepted on the first attempt. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

More than happy to accept this if re-submited. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

17:51, 6 January 2025 review of submission by Disnewuisux

• Disnewuisux (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:South Ferry (Shelter Island) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey folks! I recently got this draft rejected for not having enough reliable sources. I wholeheartedly believe that this topic should be covered on Wikipedia, but I simply cannot find Wikipedia-grade sources for the content I need cited. WP:Notability says to merge it into a broader article that it fits into, but I do not believe that such an article exists. I understand the guideline that no reliable sources means it's not notable enough, but I believe that it does meet all other notability criteria in this case. If someone could point me in a direction to get this draft published, that would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. Disnewuisux (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Disnewuisux: actually, this was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which is kind of related to but not quite the same as "not having enough reliable sources". We normally need to see three sources that satisfy every aspect of the WP:GNG standard. Your draft cites only two sources, one of which is just an operational update provided by the ferry operator. We need more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing thanks, I'll see what I can do. Disnewuisux (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

18:09, 6 January 2025 review of submission by AvaMalone

• AvaMalone (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Avamalone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why was it deleted? this is clear information about an existing and evolving individual who not only has her knowledge panel but Google is having trouble with adding information because the information about this individual was incorrectly cited and needed to be rewritten AvaMalone (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@AvaMalone: I assume you are referring to User:AvaMalone/sandbox which was deleted as unambiguously promotional. What Google does or doesn't do is irrelevant to Wikipedia, and the mere fact of existing is not a criterion for notability – and Wikipedia articles are created about notable topics only. --bonadea contributions talk 18:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@AvaMalone: the draft was entirely promotional, as well as entirely unreferenced, meaning it wasn't based on independent and reliable third party sources, in turn making it, if possible, even more promotional.

What is your relationship with this subject? You had uploaded all the photos in this draft as your own work, so you are clearly collaborating with the subject in a fairly close manner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

21:02, 6 January 2025 review of submission by 73.229.252.223

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

Hello, I've been working on this article for months and was told by various people, including one of our editors that the topic was notable. I removed the "peacocking" terms and streamlined the text, but in doing so I've now been declined for not being notable. Every sentence has a citation and many of them are from media outlets. The individual was on national TV and played professional golf...I don't understand how that isn't "notable" or worthy of being on wikipedia. 73.229.252.223 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This person is even mentioned in this wikipedia page, which I had intended to link to/from once the article was approved: The Big Break Gottulat (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you link to where you were told the person is notable, or say who told you that?

Mere appearance as a professional golfer is not inherently notable, the things most likely to make a golfer meet the notable person definition are at WP:NGOLF. Participation in a TV show isn't inherently notable, either.

The draft mostly discusses her activities, not what independent reliable sources say is important/significant/influential about her. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The editor that told me it was notable is Utopes. I was in the suggested chat forum (forget the name of it) that is always recommended after an article is declined. Utopes was also in there and we had a long chat about the article and what changes should be made. Utopes told me that there was clearly space for this subject on wikipedia and that it was good I hadn't been declined for notability purposes since the point when they had reviewed the article.

I guess I am unsure what I'm missing...listing out what reliable sources say is important/significant/influential is subjective and not necessarily fact based. Just because one outlet says she is a "top confidence coach" doesn't mean I should put that in the article, right?

Additionally, I saw this article of Lori Atsedes was accepted, but it has 1 citation. Lori competed in the same season of The Big Break as my subject and if you read the content of the page, it even mentions my subject... I've spent a great deal of time researching the subject and am just trying to figure out how to do this properly as this is my first foray into wikipedia content. Gottulat (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gottulat: The article on Atsedes predates the drafting process entirely (first edit: 2007/03/12). Even if it had been drafted, you cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other articles to argue for your own. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @Jéské Couriano. I didn't realize the article I referenced predated the process, that is good to know. Do you have any other suggestions on how I can improve the article? Gottulat (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Gottulat. Thank you for pointing us at the essentially unreferenced and therefore (in Wikipedia terms) worthless article Lori Atsedes. Its sole reference meets none of the three criteria of being independent, reliable, and containing significant coverage of Atsedes, and therefore contributes nothing whatsover to that entirely unreferenced article. I have tagged the article accordingly. Whether or not Atsedes actually meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability I have no idea.

The article was created in 2007, long before we had the AFC process. ColinFine (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@ColinFine Glad I could help, although that wasn't really my intention. I'm trying to figure out what other articles have that mine doesn't. Any guidance would be helpful. Thank you! Gottulat (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Utopes Any clarification you can offer would help. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I have some recollection on this conversation in IRC. At the time I was waiting for some assistance of my own, and during the wait I took to chatting and a look at the draft as the user was seeking feedback for. I do remember saying that "luckily the first draft was not declined for notability, so there may be space on Wikipedia for this subject". I may have also said that the subject "could be notable"; I don't believe I said it was notable with certainty. If I said it was, I would have been inclined to make the necessary changes and pass it myself if I had confidence in it, but I ended up declining the draft for POV reasons as the biased peacock-term usage was jumping out to me immediately and would not have been close to passing in its current state. If I said something that implied the draft was "looking good notability wise", that was a mistake on my part. I do believe I was optimistic in my verbiage though, and that "there is a chance" because "the good news is it was declined for verification, which is easier to fix than a notability-decline". That's about all I can remember. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like I misread the decline reason, as it seems to have been declined for notability on the first go; my memory is failing me. It did seem like the article had improved after the first declination though, to be triple the original length and with formatted citations by the time I glossed over it, so I was hoping to stay positive on IRC waiting room and speak towards the forward progress being made. It seemed at the time that something could work for this topic. Unfortunately it seems not, sorry. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@SafariScribe You've recently rejected my article. I saw that you updated your status to let everyone know you are stressed and dealing with real life matters. I hope all is well in your world. When you get a moment, can you please give me additional guidance on how to improve my article? I see that you rejected it on the premise that it doesn't meet wikipedia's notability standards, but I would beg to differ. Although my subject doesn't quite meet the criteria for subject specific notability (It is very close!), I believe it does meet the criteria for general notability.

I've found significant coverage of the subject in all forms of media (I have 20+ citations) and many of them are reliable and independent sources:

This is mainstream media: NBC Sports (The subject was televised on two seasons of The Big Break) - all of the seasons can still be watched on GolfPass (https://www.golfpass.com/watch/big-break/episode-1-hit-the-ground-running) - I didn't include this link because it requires a subscription, but if someone thinks it is worth including, please let me know.

This is a television news broadcast station: KNWA FOX24

These citations are local newspapers: Edmonton Sun, The Sentinel Record, Arkansas Democrat Gazette

These are magazines: Arkansas Money & Politics, ScoreGolf

And these are golf associations/tournaments: Southlands and LPGA

What else is needed to establish notability? Gottulat (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Gottulat: I haven't looked at your sources, I'm only making a general point: it's not enough for the sources to be secondary, reliable and independent, they must also provide significant coverage of the subject. If it's just passing mentions such as reporting tournament results, that's not enough. Also bear in mind that interviews don't count, since they are the subject talking (ie. primary source, and not independent). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Thanks for the info! I definitely have some interview style citations. Could those be hurting the article and thus should be removed? I thought more content is better... If the article was written by a local newspaper but they asked for a comment, that wouldn't be considered an interview would it? Gottulat (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gottulat: it may seem counter-intuitive, but I would actually say that less content is better. When I'm reviewing a draft that has a few short paragraphs that are straightforward and purely factual, and this is supported by a handful (say, 3-5) solid sources, I can review that in a matter of minutes, and hopefully accept it straight away. If you then add to that ten times more content and ten times more sources, the same acceptable content and the same few sources that establish notability would still be there, but I would have to work so much harder to find them. (And lazy as I am, I would be tempted to just groan and move on to another draft instead.) So no, don't add unnecessary sources that don't either contribute towards notability, or that aren't required to verify information; they could indeed be 'hurting' the draft.

Generally speaking, someone commenting on things does not contribute to their notability, because they are talking about something else. We need to see sources that are talking about this person, not reporting what this person has said about things. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

January 7

01:17, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Jeanmari1

• Jeanmari1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tomorrow's Women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Could you please provide guidance as to how I can rewrite this in a way that would fit Wiki guidelines? Jeanmari1 (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that, due to restrictions on editing about the Arab-Israeli conflict(see your user talk page) if ever accepted, you could not directly edit the draft until you have 500 edits.

If you are associated with this organization, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

The draft reads as if it were on the organization website, just telling what they do and about their personnel. An article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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. Consequently, "rewriting" this draft would involve discarding what is there and starting again, from independent reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

03:50, 7 January 2025 review of submission by BPxwz

• BPxwz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bintang Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can I get more guidance on how to improve the drafting so that it will be accepted by wikipedia for publishing? In the current draft, we have cited and made reference to several independent and reliable sources like news sites. It would be great if you can provide more detailed feedback for us. Thank you. BPxwz (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@BPxwz Looks your draft failed on notability because your sources don't demonstrate it. I would read WP:42 it's a good intro to what we look for in sources in order for drafts to demonstrate notability. Hope this helps! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

07:28, 7 January 2025 review of submission by MexFin

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

Hello team!

I am writing to understand more about the decision to reject the draft of disinformation research. I am writing this here because the template used to reject the submission is a bit unclear, and I would like to have more clarity on the precise issue so I can correct it. The template emphasizes three problems with the draft: Informal writing, neutral point of view, and reliable sources.

- Informal writing. Could you please help me understand what exactly you see as informal writing? I would like to know how to correct it.

- Neutral point of view. I even included a section on criticism of this line of research precisely to make it neutral.

- Reliable sources. Could you help me understand which sources are not reliable? I included 38 academic references, all of them from peer-reviewed scholarly sources.

Thank you so much for your help.

MexFin (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MexFin: the decline templates don't always provide a perfect fit, for instance in this case it could be that not all three issues apply to this draft; for that reason, I'm pinging the reviewer @TheTechie: for any comments they may be able to share.

Part of the problem could be (and I'm mostly guessing here) that, thanks to the subject matter, the terminology is quite 'buzzy', with fake news and filter bubbles and echo chambers etc. This is also perhaps written in the manner of an exposition, discussing recent research, suggesting 'alternative perspectives', etc., rather than as a purely descriptive encyclopaedia article.

Anyway, I won't speculate further; let's wait to hear what TheTechie has to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer! I agree that the nature of the article is really about all these buzzy words, but this is precisely what the research field is all about. I would like to hear the recommendations so that i can fix it! :) MexFin (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing @MexFin Yeah the buzzword-type language and some informal text was why I declined. Though I don't remember saying anything about reliable sources though (see this for context). TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @TheTechie and @DoubleGrazing for taking the time. I really appreciate it. I will do my best to make the article use less buzzwords. However, the reason why I am using these words is precisely because they represent the phenomenon that "disinformation research" is studying (See table 2 of this research article). You can see in this publication how researchers are trying to make sense of all these partially overlapping terms, for example in Caroline Jack's Lexicon of Lies. The concepts look like peacock terms because these are the words used to discuss them in policymaking circles, academic research, and news media. We read these terms in the news all the time, and academic researchers study the phenomenon using precisely these terms.

I will make the article more neutral, but I kindly ask you to consider that these terms are the part and parcel of the nature of the article.

On a separate note, thank you for your gatekeeping efforts. I truly value the unpaid work of editors just upholding the values of the old Internet. Just be aware that the disinformation field may be closer to Wikipedia than it has ever been when now even individual Wikipedia editors are targeted by trying to make them/us look like agents spreading disinformation. This technique has been used against journalists but never before against Wikipedia editors. MexFin (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@MexFin: thanks for your kind words, and for the note of caution. Yes, when billionaires turn their guns on the likes of Wikipedia, and sack entire fact-checking departments, it makes for unsettling mood music.

RE this draft, I don't think there's any reason not to use terminology that comes with the territory, so to speak, as long as it is done to label and discuss the concepts, and not just for 'buzzword bingo' purposes. Which I'm sure was the case here anyway. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

08:55, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Cibra100

• Cibra100 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oleg Ibrahimoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I recently submitted a draft article titled Draft:Oleg Ibrahimoff, which was declined for not meeting the notability criteria. The reviewer mentioned that the references do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This article is a translation of an accepted French Wikipedia article, and I have included references in French. Could you please review my draft and provide suggestions for improving it so it aligns with the English Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you for your help. Cibra100 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cibra100: you're asking us to review this draft, but it was reviewed already, and declined. Are you saying that the reviewer got it wrong... or you just didn't like the outcome? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

10:05, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Lawrence Chen

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

I am seeking assistance with the Wikipedia page of Lawrence Chen because the submission was rejected due to concerns over not meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. I would like guidance on how to better demonstrate his notability by citing reliable, third-party sources and providing more verifiable information to support his inclusion in the encyclopedia. Lawrence Chen (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Lawrence Chen You say "I am seeking assistance with the Wikipedia page of Lawrence Chen" as if you are not him, but your username is his name. If you are not him, you need to change your username immediately via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.

THe draft was rejected, typically meaning that it will not be considered further. The article(the preferred term, not "page") should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. It should not merely be a summary of his activities, accomplishments, and qualifications. What do sources say is important about him/you? 331dot (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I also note that you claim to have personally created and own the copyright to the very professional looking image of Mr. Chen. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Feedback Request for Draft on Ludmila Yamalova

Moved from Draft talk:Ludmila Yamalova

Hi everyone,

I’m working on a draft for a Wikipedia article about Ludmila Yamalova, a US-qualified lawyer and businesswoman based in Dubai. She is the founder and managing partner of a law firm and has been featured in various media outlets for her legal insights.

I have tried to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability guidelines, but I’d like some feedback to confirm whether the draft is ready for resubmission. The article includes:

• Her early life, education, and career highlights.
• Media contributions and recognition (e.g., features in The New York Times and Financial Times).
• Specific achievements, like founding one of the first legal podcasts in the MENA region.

Here’s a link to my draft: Draft:Ludmila Yamalova

It would be great help someone could heladdresse following in the context of the draft:

1. Does the article establish notability based on the sources cited?
2. Are there sections that might still come across as promotional or lacking neutrality?
3. Are the references sufficient, or do I need stronger independent coverage? (I have exhausted all the references)

I would greatly appreciate your insights or suggestions to improve the draft before resubmission. Thank you so much for your time! 😊 ~~~~ Aishanijoon (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aishanijoon: you would get feedback if you submitted this for another review. That's what the AfC process is there for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I wrote this here because I was suggested to get feedback from editors through Teahouse. But as a new editor, I am unable to post there, and this was the recommended method. I was hoping to get feedback before I resubmit for the third time. :( Aishanijoon (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Poorly sourced, promotional, non neutral and not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aishanijoon: my point was, in order for someone to give you feedback, they will have to effectively review the draft. So by asking for feedback, you're asking us to review, but to do so out of process and bypassing the pool of c. 1,800 other pending drafts.

Anyway, now you have feedback, above.

And in terms of feedback to your boss who set you this very challenging task, you may want to show them this: WP:BOSS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aishanijoon: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• We can't use https://lovin.co/dubai/en/latest/pda-allowed-in-uae-tiktok/ (unknown provenance). We also can't use the Tiktok video it's citing (connexion to subject, too sparse).
• We can't use https://www.cosmopolitanme.com/career/tiktokers-that-will-help-you-advance-your-career (too sparse). Listicle.
• I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/greathomesanddestinations/03iht-redubai03.html (walled). Someone with an NYT subscription will need to assess this source.
• https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/business/global/07dubaibuild.html is useless for notability (too sparse). All it really says about her is she's bringing a lawsuit against Dubai real-estate developers.
• I can't assess any of the Financial Times or Bloomberg articles (walled). Someone with subscriptions to those sources will need to assess them.
• https://www.khaleejtimes.com/coronavirus-pandemic/covid-19-can-uae-employers-force-staff-to-take-the-vaccine is useless for notability (too sparse). Stuff She Says; no actual discussion of her.
• https://www.arabianbusiness.com/startup/academy-focus-on-employment-565065 is useless for notability (too sparse). The whole article verges on being too-short-to-cite, but Yamalova is merely mentioned and not really discussed.
• https://gulfnews.com/living-in-uae/safety-security/uae-introduces-new-domestic-violence-law-stronger-protections-for-victims-tougher-penalties-for-abusers-1.1728559248234 is useless for notability (too sparse). Stuff She Says; no real discussion of her.
• https://gulfnews.com/living-in-uae/ask-us/new-uae-cybercrimes-law-do-you-know-what-can-land-you-in-trouble-1.1652280765797 " " " " (" "). " " "; " " " " ".
• https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/money/2024/10/10/what-to-do-if-your-bank-blocks-end-of-service-gratuity-owing-to-an-unlisted-employer/ " " " " (" "). " " "; " " " " ".
• https://www.thenationalnews.com/uae/2024/02/02/changes-to-eviction-notices-put-dubai-tenants-on-alert/ " " " " (" "). " " "; " " " " ". I'm really not a fan of straight rows of ditto marks.
• We can't use Facebook or any other form of social media (no editorial oversight). At best, these can be used to verify things she said on social media, but they're utterly worthless as a notability citation.
• https://thefinanceworld.com/top-100-expat-business-leaders-in-the-uae/ is borderline. It's a listicle, but the sections are by themselves just big enough to help for notability.
• We can't use https://www.zawya.com/en/press-release/events-and-conferences/second-day-of-knowledge-summit-tackles-development-of-knowledge-economy-balance-in-times-of-crisis-and-fight-against-global-poverty-vaklvabd (no editorial oversight), and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (too sparse). Clearly-labeled press release; Yamalova is only mentioned in passing.

What I can assess isn't any good for notability save for The Finance World. However, given there's five sources that I can't touch, I can't say authoritatively that you haven't met the burden of notability as we define it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

14:39, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Mwalimuwakwanza

• Mwalimuwakwanza (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Bio mwalimuwakwanza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i need assistance to upload images and certificates as extra resources. also how to separate the content. thanks Mwalimuwakwanza (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Mwalimuwakwanza/sandbox

@Mwalimuwakwanza: you can request files be uploaded at Wikipedia:Files for upload or follow very closely the instructions at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. However, please keep in mind that certificates and images won't be considered independent, reliable sources sufficient to demonstrating WP:Notability and the first focus of the draft should be establishing this for your topic. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Mwalimuwakwanza. I'm afraid you're in a very common situation for editors who try the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent much time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you enter a tournament the first time you ever picked up a tennis racket?

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.

To address your specific concerns: Bobby has answered you about how to upload images, but I want to point out that images are 100% irrelevant to getting a draft accepted. Furthermore, I can think of almost no circumstances where uploading an image of a certificate would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

A Wikipedia article about Mdundo should be a summary of what people who have no connection whatever with him have chosen to publish about him in reliable places - major newspapers, books from reputable publishers etc. That's all. What he says, what his associates say or want to say, what you know about him, are all irrelevant, unless they have been reported on by independent sources.

To write an article about him, your job begins with finding such published sources. Every source should meet all the criteria in WP:42. If you cannot find several such sources, then I'm afraid he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you are wasting your time trying to write an article about him. ColinFine (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

16:00, 7 January 2025 review of submission by CarriageFilms

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

Hello! I am trying to create a new page for a film producer who has produced a number of films, been nominated for the top American independent film award, and has been quoted a number of times discussing his projects in independent trade publications like The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, and Variety, but for some reason the page keeps getting rejected for not being a significant enough figure to warrant a Wikipedia page. How can I improve the article to get it approved? I've been looking at other producers' pages of a similar caliber and cannot figure out what I'm missing. CarriageFilms (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@CarriageFilms: the relevant notability guideline is given at WP:FILMMAKER. Which of the criteria does this person meet, and what evidence supports that?

Alternatively, you can establish notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. Note that Pirro "discussing his projects" does not qualify as independent or secondary.

It is pointless comparing this draft to existing articles (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument). Drafts are assessed by reference to current policies and guidelines, which all new articles must meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

17:50, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Nadeem7044

• Nadeem7044 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Voice Of Afghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I submitted a draft about VoiceofAfghan.com, a news website providing content in Pashto and Dari. It was rejected .

Can someone guide me on:

Improving notability with better references. Writing in a neutral tone. Meeting Wikipedia’s requirements for such topics.

Thank you! Nadeem7044 (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nadeem7044: The lack of sources is the most fatal issue. Without sources, you don't have an article. (The subject themselves does not count.) A Wikipedia article should be based solely on what third-party reliable sources have written/said about the subject, with citations to those sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Nadeem7044 I'll note that it was "declined", not "rejected". The word "rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft process, it means that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

20:46, 7 January 2025 review of submission by VelvetEcho 21

• VelvetEcho 21 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shlomi Raz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help me publish this article VelvetEcho 21 (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @VelvetEcho 21, start by reviewing Help:Your first article. Then, conduct research on the topic and collect sources that are independent, secondary and reliable. Once you have those sources, cite to them inline. See the instructions Help:Referencing for beginners. Presently, your draft is void of inline citations, so it appears that you have written the article backwards and thus will have a difficult time improving it. See the guidance at WP:BACKWARDS. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@VelvetEcho 21: This is so blatantly promotional that I will be tagging it for deletion under G11. Other than that, you don't properly cite your sources, and your sources are all useless (most are profiles, one is an interview). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

21:07, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Ivinlivin

• Ivinlivin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:3-Sjøersløpet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone check the sources used in this article? I just got notified that it's not properly sourced. Can someone double-check this? Ivinlivin (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hwllo, @Ivinlivin.

Which three of your sources are the best, i.e. the ones that are all three of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject? - see WP:42 for more explanation. ColinFine (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I would say all of the newspaper sources are good sources; however, most Norwegian newspapers don't have open access. Besides the newspaper ones, I would say:

https://issuu.com/distancerunning/docs/distance_running_2021_edition_3 (see page 20 in this magazine)

https://3sjoers.no/en/ (the home page is pretty good coverage, even though its a primary source)

https://worldsmarathons.com/marathon/3-sj-ersl-pet#about (race information)

https://www.kondis.no/3-sjoerslopet-med-sterke-vinnertider-og-solid-deltakerrekord.6694596-127676.html (one of the newspaper ones, however as mentioned, most of these are not open access) Ivinlivin (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The Distance Running piece might be OK, but I have a couple of concerns. 1) it's not clear how independent it is, and 2) it has no byline, which is often a red flag for reliability. Is it a reporter's own research, or just reproducing information from the organisers? How can one tell?

The second and third links above, no matter how good may be their coverage, are not independent, and therefore cannot contribute in the slightest to establishing notability.

So it comes down to the newspaper sources - as you say, they may be good (meet all three criteria of WP:42), but they are behind paywalls, so I haven't looked at them.

I suggest you ask @SafariScribe, who was the reviewer who declined the draft. ColinFine (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for replying @ColinFine. Then I ask @safariscribe to look through these sources more closely? Ivinlivin (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

23:44, 7 January 2025 review of submission by Slapback79070

• Slapback79070 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amber Nova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Which of my sources are not reliable so i can change them Slapback79070 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Slapback79070: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. Notability requires sources to be reliable, among many other things, but this was not declined specifically for unreliable sources.

But since you ask, user-generated sources are generally not considered reliable. In this case that includes YouTube, Wix-based websites, as well as onlineworldofwrestling.com and thesportster.com. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

January 8

02:14, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Smdelj

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

Dear editors, would appreciate your assistance as I work to get an article approved. It was declined becaue I need to add footnotes. The article already has a significant amount of inline citations to reliable sources. What is the difference between inline citations and footnotes? This may be a fairly straightforward edit -I want to get it right and get this article launched! Thanks for your guidance. Smdelj (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Smdelj: The issue is you have claims that are unsourced, mainly most of your bulleted lists. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

03:54, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Harshit Singh Rajput King

• Harshit Singh Rajput King (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Late Babu Gauri Shankar Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my draft rejected Harshit Singh Rajput King (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Harshit Singh Rajput King: because it was purely promotional, which is also why it was deleted. Not to mention that it was entirely unreferenced, and barely legible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

09:25, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Melodydove

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

Hi, I submitted a draft that was rejected on the basis of sourcing issues, I'm unsure of the reasoning. My article is a collation of translations from other wikimedia projects which I was going to note on the edit summary or talk page. The sources included were a Ukrainian encyclopedia on folklore and mythology and another 2 books on slavic mythology, all of which were written by academics. The only problem I can see is that the sources might not be in-depth enough on this specific slavic god (or maybe too indiscriminate?) but 1 page - multiple pages of these books give information on the topic. Please advise on what kind of source I would need to use to make this article valid. Melodydove (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Melodydove Note that it was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. It's up to the translator to make sure that the content they are translating meets the requirements of the Wikipedia they are translating for. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than other versions. I don't think it's the sources themselves that are the issue, but that you don't have the sources need to establish notability. It may be notable, but you haven't established that yet. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Melodydove: note that offline sources must be cited with sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification purposes; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.

Another point, now that you say this is "a collation of translations from other wikimedia projects": be careful that you don't stray into synthesis territory. I know that's not quite what you said, but I thought I'd mention this nevertheless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

11:18, 8 January 2025 review of submission by HeiLouSimp

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

At this stage, my draft article has been rejected due to a lack of cited resources and tone. Do you have any suggestions on how I should proceed with this project? Is there someone who can collaborate with me or who has knowledge of the real Simpson family? There is a significant amount of information available online and official records that have not yet been published through Wikipedia. If you have any tips about the subject and how to improve the article I would greatly appreciate it. HeiLouSimp (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@HeiLouSimp: To start with, you do have to base the draft on reliable, secondary and independent sources that discuss the topic in some detail. Currently, there is only one reliable source, and that doesn't mention the topic at all so it is no help to us. Don't start by writing a long draft based on what you know and then look for sources that support it – that's going about it backwards. Secondly, it is very unclear what the topic of the draft really is, for instance what it has to do with sovreignty. It consists of a number of separate sections where some but not all describe historical persons called Simpson – and you have copied several sections from other Wikipedia articles (which is not actually allowed unless you attribute it correctly). Since the text is also written in a non-neutral tone, there is very little of it that could be used in Wikipedia, even if there were sources. It looks like your aim with this draft and your other edits is to tell the world about the Simpson family and its marvellous history – but that is not what Wikipedia is for. --bonadea contributions talk 11:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

11:20, 8 January 2025 review of submission by AntonTok

• AntonTok (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Cybersexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear all, I was trying to add article regarding newly invented concept of cybersexuality - newly emerged sexual orientation actually syntethized by myself based on investigation of users of my AI Dating project. There is was no such definition previously. Nevertheless my article was turned down because of lack of reliable source - however, there cannot be any sources describing this emerged concept except current article itself AntonTok (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@AntonTok: if there aren't sources, then you cannot summarise what they say, and therefore you cannot create a Wikipedia article at this time. Synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia, and "newly invented" pretty much is alternative spelling for WP:TOOSOON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

AntonTok Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first, because Wikipedia summarizes what others say about a topic. You'll have to get sources to notice this topic and write about it first, so there are sources to summarize in an article. It's far too soon. 331dot (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

17:33, 8 January 2025 review of submission by Haydar Lassoued

• Haydar Lassoued (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emergency Hamburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you help me understand why I got declined as I have made an article before on Wiki, but it also got declined, For times, may you please explain? Haydar Lassoued (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

You have no sources; an article must summarize 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. Your draft just tells about the game and its gameplay. Most articles about games discuss reviews of the game that are written by professional reviewers. I think it unlikely that this game within Roblox is notable; if you just want to tell the world about it, a website with less stringent requirements would be better suited. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Haydar Lassoued: on the bottom of the draft it says "Written By: Haydar Lassoued and Demir Zayifoğlu"; the former name is the same as your username. I interpreted "written by" as referring to the game, and rejected this on that basis, but perhaps it only referred to this draft? If so, then I'm happy to revert my rejection and only decline this draft, which would allow you to continue editing it (as in, rewriting it so that it is based on reliable and independent published sources, which are cited as references). Whereas if this is indeed a game you've developed yourself, then I think I will stand by my rejection. Let me know? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Haydar Lassoued it was rejected because this isn't the place to first write about research you have or are performing. Unless others have written about this concept in independent, reliable sources it is not ready for an article on Wikipedia. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

17:36, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 114.143.124.218

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

what is lacking in my article, exactly and what should I edit?

114.143.124.218 (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The decline reason is given in the decline notice on top of the draft page, and in the accompanying comment below it.

Please remember to log into your account whenever editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

18:57, 8 January 2025 review of submission by 95.70.145.198

• 95.70.145.198 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hasan Bülent Kahraman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to create a Wikipedia page for a university rector in Turkey. However, it says there are not enough references. I provided an official document from the Turkish Republic Official Gazette as a reference. I also included the link to the rector information on the university's official website. Additionally, the fact that he is the rector is mentioned under the "Işık University" section on Wikipedia's English page. The information about him being the rector is certain and accurate. Why is it not being approved? What is the issue?

Rector's Name: Hasan Bülent Kahraman Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%C5%9F%C4%B1k_University Draft page I want to create: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hasan_B%C3%BClent_Kahraman

Please help me. 95.70.145.198 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)