Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 508: Line 508:
:@[[User:KannappaSara9|KannappaSara9]]: yes, the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:@[[User:KannappaSara9|KannappaSara9]]: yes, the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 09:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:KannappaSara9|KannappaSara9]]. All your citations are randomly hanging off the bottom of the page instead of in-line with text. Each citation should come directly after the sentence or statement it is referencing. Please fix the referencing. You can follow this tutorial which may help: [[WP:INTREFVE]]. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">Qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 11:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:KannappaSara9|KannappaSara9]]. All your citations are randomly hanging off the bottom of the page instead of in-line with text. Each citation should come directly after the sentence or statement it is referencing. Please fix the referencing. You can follow this tutorial which may help: [[WP:INTREFVE]]. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">Qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 11:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
::Hi, The citations are now directed to refer a sentence or a statement. It's fixed and re-submitted fore review. [[User:KannappaSara9|KannappaSara9]] ([[User talk:KannappaSara9|talk]]) 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


== 16:26, 31 October 2023 review of submission by 212.98.137.244 ==
== 16:26, 31 October 2023 review of submission by 212.98.137.244 ==

Revision as of 19:23, 1 November 2023

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

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


October 26

02:08, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Rogen27

I don't know what to add. I'm creating a article about may self Rogen27 (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to add, this isn't a social media site. It is an encyclopedia on notable topics. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:12, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Danceguru1212

My request for submission has been rejected twice. I have made several changes to improve my chances of acceptance, some of which are based on feedback from the help desk. Is there a limit on the number of times an article is rejected after which it gets declined? Can anyone help me with what else I need to change in the article to improve my chances of acceptance? Danceguru1212 (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danceguru1212 You must disclose your connection to this person, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. There is not a specific limit on the number of times a draft may be resubmitted, as long as you are showing progress and the person seems to be notable. If you don't show progress, though, your draft nay be rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Muntasirahmmed

Hi, I want to post one article on my company TAKO. I am a TAKO's permanent staff. Would you please accept my writing that is in draft in my sandbox? please? Muntasirahmmed (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Muntasirahmmed. Absolutely not. Your draft was completely inappropriate for Wikipedia and I have rejected it, so it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to advertise or spam your company. Use LinkedIn or Facebook for that.
You also failed to make a paid editing disclosure which is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms of Use. If you are to try and edit again in topics involved with your company, you must make this disclosure. Follow the tutorial at WP:PAID. If you do not make this disclosure you will be blocked from editing.
I also notice you added copyrighted material from your company to the draft. This is prohibited. Qcne (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muntasirahmmed You must make the paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. You should also read conflict of interest.
Your sandbox(which I have fixed the link to go to) was deleted as blatant promotion and its content was wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. A Wikipedia article about an 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. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic; company representatives rarely succeed in doing as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:05, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Zarakhanmahi757

Zarakhanmahi757 I removed the tags you placed here, which are for the draft talk page. You don't ask a quesiton, but your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:15, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Logi0256

Hello, after several attempts to create my article, it has been rejected several times. I've being doing the pertinent changes asked in order to respect wikipedia's policy. The content is informative and not as an advertisement. I would like to ask for your help so I can achieve the publication of my article. Thank you in advance. Logi0256 (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logi0256 First, if you are associated with this agency, that must be declared, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Your draft was declined several times before being rejected- there is a distinction between "declined"(which means a draft may be resubmitted) and "rejected"(which means a draft may not be resubmitted). Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does, especially in the format you chose, which is like an About page on the organization website. A Wikipedia article about an 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. Your draft did not do this, so it was correctly rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Wisest Arab

Hello

Please i would like to ask for assistance to correct the mistakes in my article to pass the review and the article be published

Thank you Wisest Arab (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wisest Arab Please disclose your connection with this person; see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wisest Arab: it's mostly unreferenced, which is totally unacceptable in an article on a living person, and the few sources there are don't establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:37, 26 October 2023 review of submission by 103.117.237.110

Why did you decline my article? It was real information. 103.117.237.110 (talk) 09:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You draft was a blatant advertisement. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:53, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Drmohammadimath

Why has been declined my draft? The previous time that this article was declined I had been used footnotes for references...and the helping guys in the help page told me that it is not good to use footnotes...So I had to delete them and used external links...but this time it has been declined and they told me why do not you use footnotes....It is very strange and I do not know why Wikipedia is bothering me and reject an article about one of the best Mathematicians in Italy!!! All the things I have written in this article are true and I put all the references! 

Drmohammadimath (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Drmohammadimath. Every single source you have used is a paper or book or article written by Stefano. This means they are not independent of the subject, which means you have not proven that Stefano passes the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Qcne (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Akakachan

yuy Akakachan (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Akakachan: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected, as there already exists an article on the same topic at Avengers: Infinity War. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Ryanatour1

why was this rejected can i get a specific reason Ryanatour1 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryanatour1: let's turn this around – can you give me even one specific reason why this should be included in a global encyclopaedia? Because I sure can't think of any. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
entirely unsourced and there is zero indication of the subject being notable.Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)±[reply]
The subject is notable if the person it is written about is notable Ryanatour1 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Therein lies the rub. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because Sebastian Munoz Rodriguez is a household name that should be cherished by all Ryanatour1 (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Blocked as NOTHERE. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Macpacgov

I don't understand the reason my article was declined. Macpacgov (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Xpillz

my submission not qualifies for Wikipedia article Xpillz (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, @Xpillz, your draft does not qualify for an article. Do you have any further questions? Qcne (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I have provided citation and arrange everything,what could be missing or what more left to be fixed so that it can be acceptable Xpillz (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your citations do not prove this person meets the WP:SINGER criteria. Qcne (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xpillz most of the sources are not reliable (no evidence of editorial oversight, history of fact-checking, some offer promotional services which means they are not reliable or independent, etc.). S0091 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Sachake94

I've submitted a wikipedia draft for a fintech marketer in Sri Lanka. With website references of the figure -Business magazines feature article about him -Business news site feature article about him -An article he wrote which was published on a leading newspaper -A brand blog of a fintech app in Sri Lanka talking about an innovation he did.

Someone has rejected my article saying the person is not noteworthy! I think that's completely insane Sachake94 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sachake94 let's go through your sources one by one:
1) economynext.com, an interview so cannot be used to establish notability. See WP:INDEPENDENT.
2) echelon.lk, the... same interview? see above.
3) frimi.lk, a blog post so not WP:RELIABLE. Also barely talks about the guy
4) apidm.lk, a staff page, so not WP:INDEPENDENT.
5) apidm.lk, another staff page, so not WP:INDEPENDENT.
So, how exactly do you believe this person meets the WP:NBASIC criteria? Qcne (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:02, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Jhulford

Im sorry; I feel as if I submitted quite a few references and citations. How can I improve this so I can help give this library it's own wiki article? Jhulford (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jhulford. Unfortunately every single source you've provided is WP:PRIMARY as its either from the library itself or from an organisation closely connected to the library.
Respectfully, any organisation can pump out whatever sort of advertising they want about themselves. Wikipedia is only interested in what reliable, independent, secondary sources have to say about the organisation.
Check the criteria at WP:NORG. Qcne (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added some better citations to outside sources is this any better? I would appreciate your advice. Jhulford (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the draft is worded as advertising- the library describing its services and offerings. This does not establish notability. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others say about the library. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 26 October 2023 review of submission by JimmyTommm

What is this article lacking? It is a webpage informing people about the mustache club. JimmyTommm (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to tell people about your club. That's what social media is for. When the news writes about your club and what makes it a notable organization, let us know. 331dot (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyTommm, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:45, 26 October 2023 review of submission by Hamody Saif is back

Why did you treat on me Hamody Saif is back (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamody Saif is back. You didn't bother to source it after being given 2 chances to do so and thus the draft was rejected. Please read WP:GNG. Regards, Seawolf35 (talk - email) 23:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 27

04:01, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Midwesterngal

I have left things on the talk page, but this keeps getting declined each time for slightly different reasons - it's getting difficult to know what to fix. I initially got advice on seeking out more reviews. It was "too many primary sources" at one point because interviews are bad. So we found more reviews and more information. Now it appears sources aren't good - but I don't know which ones. I can and will keep digging, but it's starting to feel like I'm doing this in the dark - for a person who is already listed multiple times in Wikipedia. But this is frustrating. I would also just like to note that as someone new to this, the feeling is that I'm trying to do something dreadfully wrong when I'm simply trying to fill in a blank. Is Matt Weinhold the missing George Clooney page someone forgot to do? No. But has he been consistently contributing to the pop culture landscape across multiple genres for 20 years? Absolutely. Will multiple people recognize the work that would not exist without him? This is also true. At the same time, I'm trying to overcome the gatekeeping here and I'm not getting plain assistance. I get links to articles that have a lot of contradictory advice that I am sure makes sense if you've written 100s of articles and is definitely advantageous if you're looking to decline something. 

Midwesterngal (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Midwesterngal I am taking a look at this and will respond on the draft's talk page. S0091 (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:57, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Muktar H Abdullahi

To be more effective or more experience person on how to edits Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia project. 

Muktar H Abdullahi (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Muktar H Abdullahi. Your draft was not appropriate for Wikipedia and has been rejected. Wikipedia is not a blogging platform- articles only exist to summarise and paraphrase what reliable independent sources state about a topic. It is not a place for essays or original research. Qcne (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Rksamson

My draft is being rejected. kindly help Rksamson (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rksamson: this draft has been rejected (twice), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Yeszzzz

Hello dear admins, I’ve submitted the draft and still didn’t get answers can you guys please check on it. Thanks Yeszzzz (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeszzzz: did you happen to notice the text on top of the draft?
"Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,380 pending submissions waiting for review."
You resubmitted this yesterday. It will be reviewed in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn’t notice thanks Yeszzzz (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Narresh22

can i know more information about this article why it been blocked. Narresh22 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been "blocked" whatever that means Draft:Vimal Nair Suresh has been declined because it has no content and looks like a test edit. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Peter Garlands

Hi! Theres 5 medical white papers with all the links and citations but Ive got declined for not having solid info, is there anyone can help me out with this? Peter Garlands (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is written like an advertisement, for instance "has proven to be an effective solution to address challenges in ultrasound teaching and has revolutionized how medical professionals acquire ultrasound skills." is just marketing trumpery. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 5 white papers supporting that statment its not just marketing. But Ok, Im erasing that. IS there anything else I need to delete? thanks Peter Garlands (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Five sections have zero sources, it is ALL written in a promotional way and it is most definitely marketing and NOT an encyclopaedia article, do you work for them by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 15:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They all have linke they are above, have you read the article? Peter Garlands (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read your first article and WP:COI? Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you should note that the sourcing requirements are stricter in medical articles: see WP:MEDRS. ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Garlands I am declining this again as it is so clearly written as a PR piece. Wikipedia is NOT to be used for advertising or promotion, which this draft does. Please do not re-submit again without addressing the lack of in-line citations and the wholly inappropriate tone. Further re-submissions without addressing will lead to a rejection. Qcne (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an advertising, Im trying to make a wikipedia article but I have no clue of what is the advertising part of the article, I ve already deleted the sentence that was remarked as "promotional" what else should I delete? Peter Garlands (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Garlands Honestly? it needs a complete re-write. Nuke it and start from scratch, it is not salvageable in it's current state. You must write in a completely dispassionate way. Make no assertions. Avoid all WP:PEACOCK language. Only summarise and paraphrase what reliable secondary independent sources state about the device.
You also still have not confirmed if you are being paid to write this article, as requested multiple times on your User Talk Page. Failure to declare is a breach of Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead you to be blocked from editing. You must do this now. Qcne (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yes Im beeing paid, its my job to write an article for wikipedia, but im not allowed to do any advertising and Im not even trying. I will try to rewrite from scratch thanks Peter Garlands (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter Garlands You must make a paid editing disclosure immediately. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so will result in you being blocked from editing.
I would highly recommend you very carefully read When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.. Once you have made the mandatory declaration, find several sources that meet WP:MEDRS, and are wholly independent of the company and of anybody who was involved in developing the product or in research that led to the product. If you can find several such sources, you can go ahead and forget absolutely everything you know about the company and the product and write a summary of those sources. (Do you see why editing with a COI is hard?) ColinFine (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Beatrice Brooklyn

Hello! This draft was declined for submission because the reviewer felt the sourcing was not verifiable. I have gone through and removed any citation that could be seen as a personal blog (though these were blogs by critics and theatre writers) and have removed citations from sources Reisman herself would have input on such as the New Play Exchange. I have also deleted a link to a talk she gave on YouTube. Every other source is a from a national or regional newspaper such as The New York Times or Austin Chronicle, a major trade journal such as American Theatre Magazine, Howlround, or Broadway World, or a theatre organization's website. I've looked at other living playwrights such as Annie Baker and Martyna Majok while creating this page and they use many of the same sources. I can add citations to Reisman's list of Produced Plays but this seemed like overkill as they were mostly referenced in the previous sections. Let me know if this sourcing seems adequate and I'll resubmit. I have reached out to the reviewer for clarification but have yet to hear back. Thank you for your time and guidance! Beatrice Brooklyn (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Beatrice Brooklyn. I've had a look at all your sources. I think it passes the threshold now and would accept if you re-submitted.
It's worth noting for the future- try not to compare your draft to existing articles (or if you do, choose a WP:GOOD one). Wikipedia has many thousands of articles that are poor quality and should be improved or deleted, but no volunteer has gotten around to it yet. Qcne (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, thanks so much for taking the time to look it over and for the tip about comparisons- both are much appreciated! I will resubmit. Beatrice Brooklyn (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Please add some WP:CATEGORIES to the new article. :) Qcne (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Wordsmith.ch

The article has been rejected. We have 2 questions: 1. When writing the article we based the structure and content on an article about the Swiss National Science Foundation. We very careful to use objective language. We would be interested to hear why the submission "seems to read more like an advertisement", with some specific examples so that the text can be improved. 2. We are unable to provide further published sources about Euresearch. Why is our article being rejected for this when there is a related article without any sources? The article, in German, is about the "National Contact Points": https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationale_Kontaktstellen. There are National Contact Points in all the European countries. The ones for Switzerland are part of the Euresearch network that our article covers. Wordsmith.ch (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordsmith.ch The article has only been declined, not rejected. Rejected would mean it won't be considered further. Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts can only be used by one person.
The German Wikipedia is a separate project with it's own policies and guidelines. What is acceptable there might not be acceptable here. The English Wikipedia does have the strictest content guidelines.
The problem with your article is that it does not show any evidence that Euresearch passes the WP:NORG criteria. We need to see significant coverage of the organisation in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Your three sources are all connected to the subject unfortunately. Can you find articles in newspapers or magazines that discuss this organisation? They do not have to be in English and can be offline.
Finally, the copy does read like an advert as it is telling the world about Euresearch. I wouldn't call the language promotional per se, but it reads like the kind of content you'd find on an About Us section of a website. This is the opposite of how English Wikipedia articles should be written: instead you should be paraphrasing what those reliable, independent, secondary sources state about Euresearch.
If you can't find those sources that we require, you might think about simply reworking the draft to an existing Wikipedia page, such as Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development.
Hope that helps, but let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. Can you please explain how the Euresearch article differs from the article I based it on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_National_Science_Foundation
That also reads like an About Us section. It talks about their magazine and has sources derived from its own website. Wordsmith.ch (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wordsmith.ch That article is fairly poorly sourced and wouldn't be accepted in it's present state if submitted now. It was first created in 2005 when our policies and guidelines were much more lax. If you were going to base your draft on an existing one, use a WP:GOOD one. Unfortunately we have thousands of poor quality articles that no one has gotten around to improving yet. I understand this is a frustrating process- it's difficult to write a Wikipedia article from scratch. I'd recommend trying to find at least three secondary sources that discuss Euresearch and paraphrase their content to make up the bulk of the article. Primary sources can be used for basic facts. If you do that, and let me know by pinging me here or on my User Talk Page, I'll take another look. Qcne (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. 213.55.244.95 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would help me is a good article of this type to look at. I reviewed a lot before I started writing and they were all similar to what I did. I looked at WP:GOOD but couldn't find any. Can you suggest a good article about an organisation that I could look at? Wordsmith.ch (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to find one, you're right. The problem with these types of agencies is most of their work is done in the background without much secondary source attention. This means it's more difficult to write an article that passes WP:NORG.
My advice would be to not approach this WP:BACKWARD: do a wide search for secondary, independent, reliable sources that discuss the organisation. Then build the article from that. Qcne (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 27 October 2023 review of submission by Saivamshi610

how to improve with reference sources i have provides author book links and interview links Saivamshi610 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews do not establish notability, because by definition they are the person speaking about themselves. We want to know what others unaffiliated with him say about him. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 28

00:33, 28 October 2023 review of submission by 113.254.24.90

Please help to edit and approve, thank you so much 113.254.24.90 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this  Courtesy link: Draft:Kanion Co? That draft has not been submitted, therefore it cannot be reviewed. And I might add, even if it were submitted, it would not be accepted as it currently stands, given that it is purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:11, 28 October 2023 review of submission by The ely community

Why was my application denied. It’s important that I am remembered when I die 

The ely community (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ely community: we don't deal with "applications", we assess proposed article drafts that have been submitted for pre-publication review. Your draft has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Sejatizen

We need publish this to introduce about our community Sejatizen (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sejatizen: not going to happen, sorry. This draft has been rejected and is pending deletion. (And, it's not in English, but at this stage in the proceedings that's just by-the-by.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Jsackley

Hello My draft was cited for copyright violations but nothing was copied. The referenced material is not copyrighted, AND the Wiki draft was published years before the cited webpage. Further, the material that is highlighted as copyrighted is very generic standard biographical terminology (example, “served as”). I am unsure how to approach this to avoid flagging. 


Jan Sackley (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jsackley: there does seem to be fairly significant copypasting and/or close paraphrasing in an earlier version, as shown in this copyvio report. That has now been removed, and is waiting to be purged from the edit history. Given all that, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Raid Gafarli

"References only show her published works not what she is notable for." Can you please explain what this comment means? I made the references part of the article in order to outline the used references as sources to what I state in the Wikipedia page. Why would I write about for what she was notable in the references part? It is completely illogical, I would like a satisfying comment for my Wikipedia article, not a sentence with no meaning. Thank you for your time. Raid Gafarli (talk) 10:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raid Gafarli: if I interpret that comment correctly, it seems to be saying that the sources cited are mostly her own works, which are close primary sources and cannot therefore be used to establish notability per WP:GNG; we would need to see significant coverage of her in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Alternatively, if instead of the general GNG notability you're asserting some sort of special notability, eg. WP:NACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR, then we would need to know which criterion/-ia she meets, and what evidence supports such an assertion. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Saif El Eslam Mostafa

i really dont know what is the problem iam just doing this page for a university project 

Saif El Eslam Mostafa (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Saif El Eslam Mostafa: first and foremost, the subject must be notable enough to warrant inclusion, and in your draft there was no evidence or even suggestion of notability. Secondly, all the information must be verifiable from reliable published sources, especially in the case of articles on living people; your draft cites no sources at all (it lists one, without citing, but it isn't reliable). And thirdly, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, as explained in WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ohh okay thank you so much Saif El Eslam Mostafa (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Nnn edits

Please help me or guide me to improve This article.Show my mistakes or solve yourself. Thanks Nnn edits (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nnn edits this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is nothing you can do. Qcne (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:38, 28 October 2023 review of submission by BurakATurk

Hello i add many sport news about him from Japanese and Bulgarian news site.Any problem now> BurakATurk (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BurakATurk Wikipedia can not be used as a source. Qcne (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just ingore the Wikipedia.i Just want to link with other language wiki. BurakATurk (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BurakATurk: the subject of this draft is a living person, therefore referencing must be done by inline citations. You have cited two sources in the correct manner. The other 11 are just piled at the end, where they support nothing in the draft. Either use them to actually support the contents, or get rid of them – at the moment they are only a distraction. In any case, you don't need 13 sources to establish notability. Pick the three strongest, you'll do everyone incl. yourself a favour. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much i am new and dont know the rule before.I had fixed that. BurakATurk (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Shetty mayur

Rejection unwarranted Shetty mayur (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shetty mayur: it has been undone, now back to declined status.
For future reference, do not resubmit a draft after a decline without addressing the decline reasons. That is totally pointless, unconstructive, as well as annoying to the reviewers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd made the appropriate changes and added references, but it didn't reflect. It's sorted now and showing fine, however I'm not able to resubmit. Please help. Shetty mayur (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shetty mayur: the template was broken, I've fixed it, you should be able to resubmit now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. Get rid of all the sources from you or from Blackfrog. Have you read WP:AUTOBIO? ColinFine (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shetty mayur, according to Thought leader, The phrase "thought leader" is identified by some writers as an annoying example of business jargon. We don't use business jargon in Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 28 October 2023 review of submission by 173.71.122.147

A page was submitted by an editor and I would like to see its status. How to check it? Please let me know. 173.71.122.147 (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Something was done by someone", really? Can you be a bit more specific, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 28 October 2023 review of submission by JOHN GABRIEL231

Subject: Wikipedia Assistance Request

Dear Wikipedia Assistant,

I need help with Making A better Wikipedia Page For my school.Could you please assist with the reference?

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely, JOHN_GABRIEL231 JOHN GABRIEL231 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JOHN GABRIEL231: your draft was a copyright violation, therefore I've asked for it to be deleted. You are not allowed to copypaste content from anywhere, unless it has been explicitly provided free of copyright. Please carefully read and understand WP:CV. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Vaibhavk09

Why my page is rejected/removed Vaibhavk09 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous advertising, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 28 October 2023 review of submission by JOHN GABRIEL231

Can you delete this article but allow future users to create the same name as St.Peter's College of Ormoc

Cries JOHN_GABRIEL231 JOHN GABRIEL231 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested deletion. Do not add copyrighted content to Wikipedia- that is prohibited. Qcne (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:45:36, 28 October 2023 review of submission by WikiUName

{{Lafc|username=WikiUName|ts=18:45:36, 28 OctoberKpm31300 - Satpmv4528 S06UTC103120236 063131p36://UTC10.645k45pUTC2845pm.2023Sat, 28 Oct 2023 18:45:36 +00006/645k45/Satpmv4528_S06UTC103120236

October0RSUTC UTCE00 1698518736S 43182023 2023+00001698518736 PMRE REQ1698518736ESUTC0618 PM PMSS0SUTCPM6CE +00006 UTC18E 006E BE0+000043 UTC180S 006E. UTCpmkUTC pm36 10pm1023 Saturday4510UTC36 pm36 232023u 10UTCUTC28. 0 28202310'31 k1020236 0620236 312023 up28pm31UTC 3106UTC f202320233110202331UTC36 10202331 312023 06pmvUTC Bare URLs with potential Sat, 28 Oct 2023 18:45:36 +0000202331" -->

WikiUName (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 28 October 2023 review of submission by WikiUName

I don't know how to fix the problem with the "BARE URLs" - I have been trying for 5 hours!!!! 

WikiUName (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiUName WP:CITE and WP:REFB ought to be of use. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Rainer Gutsche

Thanks for your same day review. However, I do not understand what is bad about the references. Of course, they are all in German.

The first three are from the journal alpha. This was a jounal of extracurricular mathematics with a very good reputation. And that's why it was probably just the right journal for publications on and about the Herzberger Quader.

The fourth reference comes from a website with materials for math teachers. This is just a proof that the Herzberger Quader is really used in school today. Rainer Gutsche (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Gutsche I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion).
References do not need to be in English(though it does help as the odds of a reviewer knowing German are probably low) but they do need to provide significant coverage of the topic to show that it is notable. Some parts of your draft are unsourced, too. 331dot (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Unsourced is the second paragraph of Possible Problems. This is spread all over and rarely quotable. So should I rather delete this paragraph? Rainer Gutsche (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainer Gutsche All you have to do is to prove that the subject has notability.Removing anything which interferes with that seems wise.
However, make sure that your references have significant coverage of the subject. Generally that means at least three paragraphs. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong Now I am helpless. Yes, the Herzberger Quader is known in Germany, but I guess that's no reason not to write about it in English. Can you please give me a hint in which direction I should change something? --Rainer Gutsche (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainer Gutsche If it is notable in Germany it is notable globally. I hope that helps 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Midwesterngal

I keep going back and forth - the advice I've gotten has been all over the place. This person has been in front of, behind the scenes and has written for significant productions. They have been a featured comedian for decades. They have had a decades-long podcast - I'm still trying to track down some in-print magazines to get additional sourcing. The podcast has featured a crazy amount of luminaries from the sci-fi and horror world. I get that he is not George Clooney. And - I totally get that you have a rule you can go to for "don't tell us about other articles," but as I go through the vast majority of comedians that have also won/placed in the Seattle Comedy Competition, this is really, really starting to feel like dogpiling. Like - "well, you got rejected once and we're not going to look back because the bar will get higher and higher and higher and higher and higher and higher and higher."

Like his name is literally already in Wikipedia multiple times - not just for the awards, but in the Journeyman project, Stan Against Evil, Weird Al's show and Beware the Batman - in addition to the comedy awards.

Would it help if I updated additional entries - with the citations - on the Dish and similar shows to further put his name in Wikipedia so that it's clear it's getting weirder and weirder he doesn't have his own entry? I mean, should I seek out a board for the podcast and beg the guy to get in some sort of trouble so there's a notable article about him bullying goats or something and then we could add a controversy section that could not be ignored?

Not every show in the world does a massive amount of publicity - so the "independent news coverage" gets slimmer and slimmer. This is getting very frustrating. This is not like the guy played a barista in a single Marvel film for 4 seconds and this is his sole credit. Midwesterngal (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources, this person will not merit an article. Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further at this time, absent a fundamental change in circumstances. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To set the record straight, advice has not been "all over the place"; this draft has been each time declined for either lack of evident notability or insufficient referencing, or both. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 28 October 2023 review of submission by Ewhauss

I submitted this article, and was told to find more sources. So I did. Then the next reviewer had an entirely different issue. I find this statement to be rude: " Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for a long adoring obituary focussed on "wonderfulness"." The fact is, this individual was an important scientist, but much of what he achieved is not publiclized. So I will attempt to remove the "wonderfulness" aspect and see what happens. Funny thing is, the people noted in the draft who offered insights into this individual, are also important people --and I used links to their Wikipedia pages. Ewhauss (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ewhauss I suggest you suppress your feelings that the reviewer was rude, and recognise that they are not going to write an essay explaining that the supposed wonderfulness should be absent. They could have used WP:NOTMEMORIAL instead and given you less information.
Wikipedia doesn't care about anything except verified and verifiable facts about any topic, facts which show notability in a Wikipedia sense. This is achieved by finding significant coverage whcih is about, not by the subject, and is in multiple reliabke sources which are independent of the subject.
Now, back to your feelings. We are required to honour WP:CIVIL in all that we do. Civility may be frank, direct, even brutal, but it must be civil. Reviews are an iterative process. You need to work with reviewers if you want reviews. Don't ask a question you don't want to hear the answer to. Offering a draft for a review asks the question "Is this ready to be published?" It wasn't. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ewhauss I have left a couple of pointers as a reviewer comment on the draft. Please use them as examples, not the definitive list of what might be done. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment "the next reviewer had an entirely different issue", there is no obligation on the reviewers to keep declining for the same reason, or for some sort of 'priority reasons' above others; they can and will decline for whatever valid reason they wish, which may be the first one they come across. If a draft has a number of declinable issues, then it may indeed be declined for a number of different reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ewhauss As an exemplar of that, I have left a further detailed comment on the draft. Thank you for doing the work I suggested. I had hoped you might use my suggestions as example of what else needed to be done, but I have had to leave more detailed suggestions this morning. There is work to do. I haven't even started checking that the references you have chosen pass WP:42 yet. I will probably leave that for another reviewer lest you feel I am picking on you.
Please understand that our parameters are to accept a draft if we believe that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Had I felt it stood that chance I wood have accepted it this morning, even if you had not submitted it for formal review.
Wikipedia is not a place for you to memorialise family members, and I have notified you on your talk page that I perceive you have a WP:COI with this draft and the other Haussman article that was accepted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 29

12:40, 29 October 2023 review of submission by Moonotth

Why it cannot be posted? Moonotth (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Moonotth: because this is not a valid draft for an encyclopaedia article, it is a series of very long lists of bullet points, with insufficient referencing. You may be able to draft an acceptable article about this topic, but this wasn't it. Please see WP:YFA and WP:REFB for advice on article creation and referencing, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the article needs to be reformatted as it appears to be a few long run-on paragraphs. @DoubleGrazingis the expert though. JoeK2033 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 29 October 2023 review of submission by Tonny Graphix

Hello, My submission has been rejected, I want to know what the problem is Tonny Graphix (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tonny Graphix. Why did you completely ignore my previous two declines where I told you your draft was written in a completely inappropriate way for Wikipedia?
In any case, there is zero evidence you meet our special definition of a notable person, the criteria is at [WP:GNG]]. Qcne (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tonny Graphix Can I view the draft? Could I improve it by after finding reliable sources? JoeK2033 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted as advertising. Perhaps it could be rewritten from scratch. But what was there looked autobiographical material that would not have sources to support the statements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 29 October 2023 review of submission by 5.122.222.159

سلام مشکل مقاله من چی است که شما رد کرده اید؟ 5.122.222.159 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was completely unsourced and was not in English. There is no evidence of notability under WP:GNG. Qcne (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on this 100%. JoeK2033 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 29 October 2023 review of submission by 5.122.222.159

من چطوری باید موضوع و داغ کنم؟ 5.122.222.159 (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have rejected your draft, there is nothing else you can do. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 29 October 2023 review of submission by Sidhxyz

JUST I WANT TO PUBLISH MY ARTICLE Sidhxyz (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhxyz I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" included. Your draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not the place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is written in the first-person point of view without any sources, making it unfit for publishing.@Sidhxyz, Good call @331dot. JoeK2033 (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 29 October 2023 review of submission by 50.187.77.85

My article was rejected because of the references not being good enough but I'm unclear as to why. 50.187.77.85 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. Your draft was only declined, not rejected. Articles about movies must pass our special notability criteria which you can find at WP:GNG. You have two sources: IMDb is unreliable so cannot be used to establish notability. dmtalkies works as a source, but we'd need more than one source to establish notability. Qcne (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne IMDb is not reliable as a source because it can be edited, yes. However, this article could qualify because it's well-written and international, so the chance that the NYT or Wall Street Journal will cover it is low. JoeK2033 (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:38, 29 October 2023 review of submission by JoeK2033

What do you mean when you say this? Thanks! JoeK2033 (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It means just what it says. Your draft is wholly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry! I didn't see the reference text. That is entirely inappropriate. Thank you for flagging this. @331dot JoeK2033 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 29 October 2023 review of submission by Astroscobee

Hello Guys,

Jenna Kerr is appearing on Ink Master (Season 15) please check Ink Masters Wiki as well as website.... There is much about this artist that needs to be documented here on Wikipedia, open for some help here.

Thank you Astro Astroscobee (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content such as wikis, including Wikipedia, are not reliable sources so should not be used and the same for commercial site that sell products (worldfamoustattooink.com, really?). Being on a television show in and of itself does equate to notability as Wikipedia defines it. Interviews/her comments are primary sources so cannot be used to establish notability, regardless of the source that publishes it. There is nothing in the draft that suggests Kerr can meet the notability, as talented as she may be. S0091 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 29 October 2023 review of submission by FoxtrotAzad

Dear Sir / Madam

I have made changes and updates on the article based on verified websites and news links. Need you to reconsider the article publication. Appreciate if you can assist. FoxtrotAzad (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume or a list of accomplishments; we need to know what independent reliable sources consider to be notable as defined by Wikipedia about this person, not merely what their accomplishments are. 331dot (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 30

00:54, 30 October 2023 review of submission by Wickkey

I need help getting Louis Boasberg approved, please help me, thanks. Wickkey (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What specific help are you looking for? 331dot (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Findagrave and ancestry.com are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:00, 30 October 2023 review of submission by TrainFreak125

My article was declined for "lack of reliable sources", most of the article was translated from the Japanese version of the article, which does not contain many sources, should I remove these sections or find reliable sources for them? Or can I reference the Japanese version of the page (probably not)? Which sections of my article do need additional sources? TrainFreak125 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that what is acceptable on the Japanese Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here- each Wikipedia is independent, with their own editors and policies. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
The solar panels part is unsourced, but overall you need sources that provide more significant coverage of this defunct theme park than you have now. If these don't exist, it may not merit an article on the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 30 October 2023 review of submission by Bestkitchenettes

Why you reject me Bestkitchenettes (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 30 October 2023 review of submission by 102.220.41.253

I need support on how to create referece string 102.220.41.253 (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:REFB. Your references should be within the text, where the citation numbers are to appear. The software will display them in the References section. And you don't have to use citation templates such as {{cite book}} (though personally, I strongly recommend that you do); but if you don't use such templates then there is nothing to interpret the "parameter=value" syntax that you have used.
Also note that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. This means, for example, that unless an independent commentator has specifically discussed an organisation's "vision", the vision does not belong anywhere in a Wikipedia article about the organisation. ColinFine (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 30 October 2023 review of submission by Dkoltorcan

Hello, I just saw that the article was refused again. I really would like to make edits that would be approved. Can you please guide me on what I should remove? All the sources are legit and there are no unclaimed sources, everything is about Bernhard Ruchti's work so I don't really know what to do here... Thank you for your help. Also, I never received the notification that the article was rejected, I don't know why... Anyway. Any help would be appreciated. I am writing this article on M. Ruchti's behalf and I have been rejected twice already so it is difficult for me to understand what to do, knowing the time between the submission and the approval. Thank you, Dkoltorcan Dkoltorcan (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @Dkoltorcan. Firstly you need to make a conflict of interest declaration by following the instructions at WP:COI. If you are being financially compensated by M Ruchti in any way you must also make a paid editing disclosure by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do either of these is a breach of the Wikimedia Term and Conditions and may result in your account being blocked from editing.
Let me know when you've done that (either COI or both COI and PAID), and then we can look at the draft. Qcne (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not financially compensated. I just find his work interesting and would really much like to see him on Wikipedia. I have worked with him several times as a musician and find that he should be in Wikipedia, that's all. Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dkoltorcan: there is unreferenced content in the draft, starting with the DOB. In articles on living people, pretty much everything must be referenced.
The reason why you didn't get the decline notification is that this goes to the editor submitting the draft, and this was submitted the second time from an IP address.
You must make a conflict-of-interest disclosure, given what you say about writing this on the subject's behalf. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I already stated twice, there is no conflict-of-interest, I am an individual editing this article without compensation. I just find that his story should ne published on Wikipedia, and I am talking about it. I am not being paid. I just contribute to general knowledge, Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dkoltorcan: being compensated is a special type of COI, but not the only one. If you have an external relationship with the subject, which is how I interpret your statements above, you almost certainly have a COI, and need to disclose it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand. So what should I indicate? That I am not paid by the person and that I don't know him except that I performed with him as a colleague? Also regarding the DOB, I don't understand. This is his date of birth. When I look at other articles, there is nothing that proves the DOB. What should I do? Thank you Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed the list of COI (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) and I don't find anything that corresponds to my scenario... Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dkoltorcan: alright, only you can know what, if anything, your relationship is. I was merely going by your statement that "I am writing this article on M. Ruchti's behalf", which sounded to me like he had asked or instructed you to write this.
Per our guideline WP:BLP, articles on living people have strict referencing requirements due to privacy etc. reasons. DOB is something that many people are sensitive about being released into the public domain, and for that reason Wikipedia articles must not include it unless it has already been reported previously, and even then it can only be included if supported by a reliable published source. If you cannot find such a source to support the DOB, then it must be removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks noted. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am not writing writing this "on behalf of" but write on his work. So I can proceed with the edits now? I will try to find a source about his DOB. Should I quote his website? Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, basic facts like DOBs can be sourced from the subject's own website or other primary sources. Qcne (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know about the lack of COI. We have to be careful with these things. Taking a look at your draft, here are some issues:
- The essay was the beginning of a lifelong interpretive and musicological exploration of the subject. a little break of the WP:NPOV guidelines. The Wikipedia voice should not make assertations unless paraphrasing a source
- As of 2017, Ruchti is increasingly appearing as a pianist. In 2018, he began his "A Tempo Project". unsourced
- In 2017 he was awarded by the city of St. Gallen with the Förderpreis Kultur. unsourced
- Starting with Volume V of the A Tempo Project... unsourced, but I wonder if citations #16 to #19 can source it? Perhaps combine the paragraphs
- The "Source" section should be titled External links and I'd remove the interview. Check the guidance on external links at WP:EXTERNAL
- In your references, the Dutch Wikipedia cannot be used, please remove
- You have quite a few interviews with the subject, which is fine, but you first need to establish if the subject passes the WP:NMUSICIAN criteria, through the use of significant coverage in multiple secondary independent sources (which are not interviews). Qcne (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 30 October 2023 review of submission by Karthikkrishnamurthy123

Hello Team, I had submitted a page for moderator review. The page got rejected on the following lines: "See WP:CORPDEPTH. Many stock market notices do not confer notability. Come back with reliable sources WP:RS about the company."

@Tagishsimon - Thank you for your inputs.

Can you or someone help in understanding this: 1. Is the content tonality fine? Are there any feedback or concerns there? 2. If I manage to find notable references, will the chances of acceptance increase?

Many thanks in advance.

Thanks. Karthikkrishnamurthy123 (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Karthikkrishnamurthy123. Let us take an analogy. In building terms, somebody is telling you that they're concerned whether your house has any foundations, and whether the land it is built on is stable, and you're asking them about the quality of your building. Nobody is going to spend very much time evaluating that when they think the ground may collapse underneath it. Sort out the foundations first, and then worry about the actual building.
But I did take a quick look - and my eyes glazed over. Do you honestly expect Wikipedia readers to care about the details of a routine corporate financial transaction. The question that your article needs to answer is What is it about this film company that has made independent commentators want to write about it? And of course the answer must come from what those commentators said, not from anything at all the the company says or wants to say. ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 30 October 2023 review of submission by Brogonee

I have properly cited the article...i don't know why it keeps getting rejected? Brogonee (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 30 October 2023 review of submission by Brogonee

Please kindly review the article Bala Sanusi Turaki. I have properly cited it and made valuable corrections Brogonee (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brogonee I have now rejected your draft- there is simply no evidence this person meets our WP:NPEOPLE notability criteria, and you've already had five reviews. Your two new sources are trivial mentions and do not count towards notability.
I would recommend giving up on this draft. Qcne (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i agree with you, but can you help me do something?, kindly google this name sharply "sesi whingan", i once created a draft about him too, but the editors keep rejecting it, when there are almost 1000 reliable sources on google mentionning about him...he is the current deputy charman on petroleum resources, Upstream for the House of Representatives (Nigeria), it still baffles me why you guys do such things...don't make wikipedia biased please. Brogonee (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't find any draft titled 'sesi whingan', and there's nothing in your contribution history. Did you use another account to submit it? Without seeing the draft I have no idea why it was rejected. Qcne (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 30 October 2023 review of submission by GimmeKittens

I don't know how to fix my mistakes where my Wiki got declined!GimmeKittens (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like it was written by a child and doesn't pass the WP:NSCHOOL criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 30 October 2023 review of submission by 72.34.120.68

i think a problem with MAKING them is that if i press enter, it doesn't make it to where as the finish, it's just all blobby, like in a paragraph. 72.34.120.68 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. I don't understand your question but your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You have now made three drafts, all of which have been inappropriate for Wikipedia.
May I suggest you go elsewhere to write your articles, perhaps a blog? See WP:ALTERNATIVEOUTLETS for a list of places that are not Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, you need to press enter twice to get a new line in wiki markup. -- asilvering (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:40, 30 October 2023 review of submission by Lovefishtropicalcane

For my first page, I figured the right thing should be to create a page for someone who deserves a Wikipedia page but does not have it yet. For this purpose, I picked one of my seniors from the university.

The submitted bio was 2-3 lines. And I submitted two links to cite the validity of the person.

I kindly request all to share whether there is a minimum word count and number of citations required to get approved. Lovefishtropicalcane (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovefishtropicalcane I'm afraid you are asking the wrong question. If the subject of your very brief draft has passed WP:NPROF it is likely that it would have been accepted.
However, LinkedIn is a user generated site and cannot ever be a reference. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lovefishtropicalcane Generally one aims for three solid references. However, inherent notability trumps quality of references. The exception is that living people do require very careful referencing. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make a draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
I hope that helps. My first answer was to set you on the right path. My second is to help you see the path more clearly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I was demotivated after my first draft got rejected, but now i have some leads to work on. I am already working on fixing the issues, and improving my article before submitting it again, hopefully this time i will get approved. Lovefishtropicalcane (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sir, I referenced to LinkedIn to prove his tenure at University. I see the point in your response. I am working on to fix the issue. Thanks a lot for replying. Lovefishtropicalcane (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 30 October 2023 review of submission by 128.249.96.242

Hello,

Is there anything else I can do to get this page approved? 128.249.96.242 (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor,
Your draft was declined, not rejected, so it has potential. The problem is that the vast majority of your sources are patents or papers by Todd, which means they are not WP:INDEPENDENT of him. We need to see significant coverage of Todd in reliable, secondary sources that are independent. You can certainly use Todd's primary sources to evidence parts of the biography, but first we need to prove notability under WP:NPEOPLE or perhaps WP:NACADEMIC. The criteria for proving notability is at those two links, the easiest of which is to find those reliable, secondary sources that cover Todd in detail. Qcne (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for at least being reasonable Uwuboi69 (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 31

00:09, 31 October 2023 review of submission by IWasIAm

Is there anything else I can add to have this being a better chance of being accepted? IWasIAm (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IWasIAm: This draft has no references, and not even the slightest indication that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for musicians. “Up and coming”=“Not notable yet”. “Not much is known about [him]”=“Not even close to being notable”. Come back when he’s actually accomplished enough that newspapers and magazines are writing about him. --Finngall talk 06:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IWasIAm: no, nothing; this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. For future reference, adding referencing would be a good idea, see WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is completely unsourced and specifically says he is not known. A musician must already be known and receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, in order to merit an article. When that happens, come back. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:12, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Editing and contributing

In reference to this.

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

Help me make it wikipedia worthy Editing and contributing (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Prerna Shetty 124

The article titled 'Huzur Phadnis (Fadnis) Family of Indore' is an original piece of work based on a noble family from the court of Indore State and has been written with diligent research. I have written this article with the consent of the said family. The article was rejected stating that "it appears to be a duplicate submission of 'Draft: Abbas Shokri' (Link: (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Draft:Abbas_Shokri&action=edit&redlink=1))" but that draft isn't available I request you to please help me gain more clarification on the rejection of my article and the unavailability of the said draft. I also request you to assist me in publishing my article as soon as possible. Awaiting a positive reply. Thank you. 

Prerna Shetty 124 (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Prerna Shetty 124: I don't see how the two drafts could be related in any way, I expect this was an erroneous decline in that respect. Perhaps you could ask the reviewer directly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 31 October 2023 review of submission by 87.49.146.37

Hi, I tried to create this page a few months ago. It has not yet been created. Is there a particular reason why it has not been posted, or is there something that can be done to get it posted. 87.49.146.37 (talk) 08:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was submitted on 1 Sept (twice), and again on 11 Oct (BTW, please don't submit multiple times, once is enough). We have a backlog of over 3,000 drafts awaiting review, and it can take four months or more, so it was simply a case of waiting longer. However, it has now been reviewed, and declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 31 October 2023 review of submission by KannappaSara9

I made the changes accordingly for the draft. Wanted to check whether it is submitted for review or not. How to check this KannappaSara9 (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KannappaSara9: yes, the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @KannappaSara9. All your citations are randomly hanging off the bottom of the page instead of in-line with text. Each citation should come directly after the sentence or statement it is referencing. Please fix the referencing. You can follow this tutorial which may help: WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The citations are now directed to refer a sentence or a statement. It's fixed and re-submitted fore review. KannappaSara9 (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 31 October 2023 review of submission by 212.98.137.244

What do you mean reliable source.lbc is the most prestigious media in lebanon. And beside its already in all other wiplki page that lebanon has one shooter in the olympics. What is wrong with you. This is becoming xenophobic. 212.98.137.244 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have one source- an article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP Editor. Please do not accuse me of xenophobia. Your single source references the Asian Shooting Championship 2023. But the draft is about the 2024 Summer Olympics. I am sure you will agree that these are two different sporting events. There are no references that discuss Lebanon at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Please find references that discuss Lebanon at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Qcne (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:46, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Faran Sajid

The information I Provided was 100% Right I also can provide the links of that articlea Faran Sajid (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is a place to write what independent reliable sources say about topics deemed notable. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 31 October 2023 review of submission by ZaidoonHJ

How to add verified page ZaidoonHJ (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaidoonHJ Please read the comment left by the reviewer. Qcne (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Mr. Vinay Mudagal

Further assistance Mr. Vinay Mudagal (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Vinay Mudagal: that's not really a question, but just to say that your draft (such as it is) has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not the place to write about yourself, you need to find some social media or blogging platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'm just writing about a musician whom i thought had potential in case he became popular
what egotistical maniac would do that. Uwuboi69 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Catgull1

Because my submission is declined but other submissions of similar things passed and were published. Please follow me on scratch, https://scratch.mit.edu/users/DogManLoc/ is the link. Also, please friend me on Minecraft by adding Seagull1097 as friend. (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article summarised what reliable independent sources say about a subject, nothing else. Knowyourmeme is not a reliable source (it is user-generated: see WP:KNOWYOURMEME) and therefore there is your draft is unsourced, in Wikipedia terms.
The fact that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is of an unacceptable standard is unfortunate, but does not justify adding more sub-standard material. ColinFine (talk) 11:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 31 October 2023 review of submission by Uwuboi69

what can i do to improve my biography on my favorite youtuber / musician Uwuboi69 (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Uwuboi69: nothing doing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

02:29, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Qk193

How can I make it approved? I have all the citations and info on the soccer player. Qk193 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qk193: football players must now show notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. You must also cite the sources correctly so that they can actually be verified. Currently this draft fails on every count. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:07, 1 November 2023 review of submission by RobertRedfield

Hello, My draft is rejected with the reasons that there are not enough reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. But 3 of my 4 references do fit that criteria. Please provide more specific requirements such as "need 10 or more" or "Reference 1 is not independent" or ... something else, and I'll do the best I can to satisfy them.

I would really appreciate the guidance in order to focus on the most effective edits. Thank you.

Robert RobertRedfield (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertRedfield: the first source is obviously close primary one, so that doesn't count. The next two are about the person, not about the film. The last source seems okay, but it alone isn't enough. (It's also very local, which usually means the threshold for covering local news is very low.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing - thank you for the guidance and that helps me understand. Makes sense. More articles are being written about the film as it plays in film festival (e.g. on Nov 6) and so I'll add that media coversage when available. Thanks again. RobertRedfield (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:54, 1 November 2023 review of submission by ZaidoonHJ

Dear assistant team, Greetings I am trying to create content regarding Journal of Faculty of Medicine Baghdad; and I try my best to do so unfortunately the references on such topics for subject from Iraq are rare and it is not available most of the time any suggestions to help me do so. Sincerely Zaidoon Jabbar MSc Clinical Embryology 

ZaidoonHJ (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that the references on such topic ... are rare is almost a definition of "not notable". If you cannot find the (reliable, independent) sources, then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Alan347

Hi, why is this draft being declined please ? Alan347 (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alan347: it was declined for the reason given in the decline notice (the grey box inside the larger pink one), namely that there is no evidence that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Congrats.deberg

I'm not very experienced at creating brand new pages on Wikipedia (I used to create with an account with my personal name which I've requested deletion in the meantime for personal reasons) and I'd like to learn how I can improve the current draft in order to address the following comment: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia."

I'm happy to collaborate on other articles too. Either already created or pending approval. Congrats.deberg (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content like " attracted customers on a global scale, and partnered with multiple industry players" reads like something from their marketing brochure. Theroadislong (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:43, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Nitajk

I have quoted major mainstream Indian newspapers in my article like the Hindustan Times, Times of India and The Indian Express. I was asked to remove these links and add "reliable" sources. Please let me know what you mean by reliable sources. My username is Nitajk. Nitajk (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nitajk: you were asked to replace inline external links, which are not allowed, with inline citations, which are required. Please see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. (And note that Moneylife is not considered a reliable source.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India is also not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:05, 1 November 2023 review of submission by 80.155.22.6

What can I do, to upload a translation of the german Wikipedia? 80.155.22.6 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is acceptable on the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. Each Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Gozips1870

I am trying to create a page for a prominent political scientist. I am wondering about the use of independent sources. I understand that I cannot use sources of a university she is employed by, but can I use sites of past universities she was employed by since they are no longer connected? Also, how do I navigate mentioning her research if I must use sources that do not have a vested interest in the individual? Gozips1870 (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gozips1870: you can use close primary sources to support non-contentious factual information, eg. the person's current position and research interests, etc., but you cannot use them to establish notability per WP:GNG. You also cannot cite them as a neutral source on qualitative matters, so eg. if her current university website says that she is a "leading expert" on something, that wouldn't be acceptable to quote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you're seeking to demonstrate notability per WP:NACADEMIC instead, then it is possible to do this even by citing solely primary sources, eg. her university website stating that she has a named chair, or a major journal confirming that she is their editor in chief. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did cite the university webpage that noted that she was the appointed director of an applied politics institute. Did I do that part incorrectly? Gozips1870 (talk) 13:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gozips1870: you did it partly right. The citation is correctly formatted, but it appears at the end of the body text, rather than immediately after the statement that it supports. (And the other citation doesn't appear in the body text at all, but rather in the 'References' section, where it supports nothing.) Especially in articles on living people, inline citations must be done so clearly that the reader should never wonder where a particular piece of information comes from, it should have the corresponding citation right next to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Actorsaurabhsuman27

How to live the article.? Actorsaurabhsuman27 (talk) 14:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to resubmit it for review, but you must first address the concerns given. Be advised that writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Flexibilityandcommunity

I am wondering which sources I mention don't meet the criteria? thank you Flexibilityandcommunity (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fleximilityandcommunity It's not necessarily the sources themselves that are the issue, but their content. The raising of funds is a routine business activity that does not contribute to notability. Awards do not usually contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). "Startups" almost never merit articles- a company typically must be established and recognized in its field enough that independent sources choose to write about it and what makes it significant. Please see WP:ORG.
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared per the Terms of Use, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not work for them and am not affiliated in any way, shape or form. I have no connection to them at all. I am an avid gamer and lover of all things nerdy. In our community of Prince George, this store is well known and most of us geeks here love it. Personally, I believe it deserves a wiki page. Momzilla007 (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I must apologize. I have responded in the wrong area to the wrong comment. Please disregard. Momzilla007 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 1 November 2023 review of submission by 2400:1A00:B060:A298:88F:F021:E969:1F24

to make good draft. what should be done? 2400:1A00:B060:A298:88F:F021:E969:1F24 (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be done- the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise a company. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 1 November 2023 review of submission by Momzilla007

Looking for a bit more feedback. After reading the notability requirements, as I understand it, I have cited 2 acceptable sources and now I just need to find 1 more? Is this correct? Momzilla007 (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1183018305"