Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 331dot (talk | contribs) at 16:03, 29 July 2024 (→13:25, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Vivekcreator96: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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


July 23

Why Last drop article declined ?

How are these unreliable sources? These are the same websites that are used on other professional film wiki pages. I don’t understand.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Last_Drop) Fantasy 45 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fantasy 45: You're conflating the outlet that published those sources with the context of those sources. And the fact is, the more in-depth sources are generally more about the filmmaker than the film itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me?

I'm not sure how to address this.

There is an Ashlee Bond.

She is quite often routinely called Ashley Bond.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

But there is already a wp article with someone with that name (who averages zero article views per day). So I can't request a redirect from Ashlee Bond to Ashley Bond.

Would appreciate any help. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:DDA7:B97A:4B36:9255 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I think what you are looking for here is some kind of disambiguation - so one would be Ashley Bond (rugby player), and the other Ashley Bond (show jumping rider), or something along those lines. In the meantime, there was already a redirect ('if you are looking for...') on the rugby player's page, and I have added the same to the rider's page so hopefully that will also help. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the rider is the one who attracts overwhelmingly the most views, should it go to her? And does the dab work in any case with a redirect? And can I create the dab myself as an IP? Many thanks. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:303D:2C0D:7B3D:DA7F (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:26, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

I revised the sources more than 5 times, and I am not sure which sources exactly are not reliable, and which ones I need to change. Kamila Fomin (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: it's not necessarily that the sources aren't reliable, but that they don't adequately support the contents. As I said yesterday (did you read any of the answers?), there are entirely unreferenced sections in this draft, which is totally unacceptable for an article on a living person. In fact, all the sources only support his works, not any of the biographical content.
And when I say 'support', I'm being generous. Eg. source #11 just points to Yahoo movie news portal, which supports nothing in this draft. Similarly, #14 points to the home page of a website, and I can't see Druhora even being mentioned anywhere on that page. There may well be other examples like this. When you say you went through the sources "more than 5 times", I'm wondering how you missed these? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin I have left a comment in the draft.
Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. Also please recognise that you have written what you want to say and are not scratching around for references. This is WP:BACKWARDS which you need to read. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:23, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Ahmadghader

hello dear, can you advise me about my topic, what i can edit to accept it and publish it. Ahmadghader (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmadghader the draft has been rejected, so please don't attempt to resubmit it, like you did here. A single interview doesn't establish notablilty. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:12, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 118.210.162.3

For some reason, my draft was REJECTED, so, I'm wandering if you can do anything about it. 

118.210.162.3 (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - your draft was rejected as Nocti is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Qcne (talk) 10:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could ask for it to be deleted? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been deleted and suppressed. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:41, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107


Hello, my draft was rejected for supposedly not having enough reliable sources, but I disagree with this assessment. Some of the sources are wikilinked and are major news sources or encyclopedias in South Korea, and others are local newspapers for Jeju Province, including 헤드라인제주 ("Headline Jeju"), Jeju Ilbo, and 뉴스제주 ("News Jeju"). Plenty of local newspapers are relied on for local features in English-speaking countries; feel like language bias may have a role here. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe courtesy tagging reviewer 104.232.119.107 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been accepted. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53:58, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 104.232.119.107


Draft was rejected for supposedly not demonstrating notability. Same reviewer of my other draft just above. These references in the article in particular are major South Korean newspapers and their entire articles are solely about the website in question:

There are also other smaller South Korean newspapers (all of which reliable and wikilinked when possible) in the article. Please give it a look with machine translation to verify. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe courtesy tag again 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@104.232.119.107, I have accepted your draft since I have no doubt of notability. Declining was because the English translations uses "Shared Yard" as a commonname but it's different with your title. Is there any input for that or I would go ahead and rename to Shared Yard? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you seeing "shared yard"? If you plug the website's name into google translate then that shows up, but when I search that name on google all I see is YouTubers who've probably used google translate instead of searching official or common names for the website. Here's a document from the Korea Copyright Commission that uses the current spelling. And the domain name for the website is "gongu.copyright.or.kr" 104.232.119.107 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 23 July 2024 review of submission by 76.148.28.254

I have submitted the article multiple times, adding sources each time, and I have not gotten the article approved. I have waited over a week for this review, while my previous submissions were reviewed within a single day. Do you have any ideas for how I can have my article approved and have it be reviewed more quickly? Thank you. 76.148.28.254 (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're TumulousStorm97?).
You most recently submitted this draft ten days ago. As it says on the top of the page, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,721 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient.
No, there is no way to expedite reviews. Is there a particular reason why you're in a hurry? Note that Wikipedia is not edited to any deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone would like a speedy review, can you tell us why you should get one over everyone else who has a draft submitted? 331dot (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Zaccwm

This article has been declined a number of times by various people with apparently a templated reason. Seldon Farmer was a recipient of a British Honour the OBE and as such would appear to meet the Biography requirement for notability i.e. "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) There were many more references from around the world but reviewers requested I remove references as there were too many.

I do not appear to be able to get the balance right, the fact that people are still citing him 40 years after his death seems to suggest that he was notable, and indeed this was confirmed by Roger Statham, author of The Golden Age of Probation: Mission V Market and in Harding, John; Page, Martin; Whiting, Adrian; Cannings, Jim (April 2024). "A Slice of Probation History: The story of Seldon Charles Forrester Farmer". ARCOIP: The Association of Retired Chief Officers and Inspectors of Probation Newsletter: 9–16. Any specific guidance for the article would be helpful to enable it to be published and others to contribute as they see fit. Many thanks Zaccwm (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you resubmit with no edits since the previous decline then you're likely to see the same result.
An OBE is generally not considered sufficient on its own to signify notability for a Wikipedia article (see for example, Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2016#MBE). You therefore need to demonstrate notability with references that show significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (WP:NBASIC). Do you have three or four sources that meet these criteria (not written by the subject of the article, and not just a passing mention)? Mgp28 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Andrewkoper

I made a Wikipedia page for a soccer team in Detroit. The soccer team has been around 15 years and has been published online previously (I have four citations). I summitted the page for review, but a reviewer declined the submission. This seems like it is a legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about. Is there a way to have another reviewer review the draft who could decide the page is good and publish it? Andrewkoper (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewkoper: it is a "legit thing to have a Wikipedia page about", if it can be shown to be notable in the Wikipedia sense. For sports teams/clubs, this means citing multiple (3+) sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard for notability, namely secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are both reliable and independent of the subject, and that have provided significant coverage directly of the subject. Of the sources cited in your draft, the radio piece (IPR) looks like it could meet this standard, but it alone isn't enough, you need a couple more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewkoper Do you want to wait for a reviewer who will tell you what you want to hear, or who will tell you the right thing? 331dot (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 23 July 2024 review of submission by WS at Worthington Steel

Requesting further information for why this page was declined. Pop-up said because of unreliable sources, but the sources used were independent and credible. WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WS at Worthington Steel: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
I cannot assess the print sources (copy required), but the sources I can assess are all unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! A quick question -- to my knowledge, the Columbus Dispatch article was not routine coverage. How are articles determined routine coverage or not? WS at Worthington Steel (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WS at Worthington Steel: See WP:CORPDEPTH. The Columbus Dispatch story is considered routine because it is business news which would have been reported on as a matter of course (in this case, spinning off a new business unit). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

Hello I want to publish this Mitesh Narigara's article, What What thing i need to complete this article ? Please guide me for this article.

Thank you Regards BtimesLive BtimesLive (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BtimesLive: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Eleanorguy

Page entry has been turned down. Would like to talk to someone live. Eleanorguy (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eleanorguy We are all alive but there is no live chat here.
Please look at your references. The majority do not even mention Broom Factory. One whcih does is simply a performance listing. I think three are about Broom Factory.
This is your roadmap. Please read the big pink decline notice and see what is required for referencing. Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE and implement what they say. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:27, 23 July 2024 review of submission by BtimesLive

We need help for article publish, We already added sources on the article. BtimesLive (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prolly for the better; the sources they added were all payola. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Jjarchivist

I have a physical newscutting of an obituary in The Times (London) dated 16 February 1996. Is there any copy of this online and how can I use this as a reference? Jjarchivist (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jjarchivist: You don't, at least not directly. You cite it as an offline source with {{cite news}}, providing the paper name, paper edition, article name, article byline, and the page(s) it ran on. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 23 July 2024 review of submission by Queremalense

This is my first article and I'm somewhat puzzled by the recurring reasons for it's dismissal re reliable and notability.

After consulting this article [10], I believe the draft article indeed satisfies the notability criteria. Similarly, there are several third party references by a mixture of national newspapers (Japan Times), specialist music publications (The Wire), and other independent music specialists (Boomkat).

I would value additional opinions and advice since the same reason for dismissal has occurred twice.

My motivation in creating the article stems from how prominent they have become in the past decade in the Japanese and European experimental music scene, as evidenced by the references I have given, despite the relative lack of coverage in english. I don't speak Japanese and so therefore can't research or link Japanese info and references in creating this page. I'm particularly interested in creating this article so that a Japanese version might next be created and they could mutually support one another as reference articles by sharing links to references that non-Japanese speakers might not find. Queremalense (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Queremalense! The good news is that sources and notability go hand-in-hand, so if you can solve one of those problems you can solve both. Let's go over your sources and see what's holding you back.
The first thing to keep in mind is that to establish notability, each source you use must meet all the criteria in WP:42, our 'golden rule'. Articles need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). So here we go!
Source 1, Japan Times, looked promising but unfortunately is an interview (not independent).
Source 2, Bandcamp, is a place to listen to their music rather than containing information about them (not significant coverage, not a reliable source).
Source 3 and 5, Boomkat, are trying to sell you their album (not a reliable source).
I can't assess source 4 and 8 as it's offline and I don't have access. It looks like the same source quoted twice, which is fine, but if it's an acceptable source that only counts as one - you need a minimum of three. Let's assume for now that this source is good.
Source 6, ZDB, is selling tickets for a performance (not a reliable source).
Source 7, gnration, is also selling tickets (not a reliable source).
Sadly, none of the sources I can access are usable. What you need is someone writing about the band who, like you, is not connected to them in any way and is just interested in them. It may be that you do need Japanese-language sources, which is frustrating - we do have translators who may be willing to help, if you can find some sources you think look promising. Google translate should be able to give you an idea of whether any Japanese-language sources are suitable and what they're saying, and you could then ask for a translator to check whether the information you're citing them for is accurate to what the source says.
I hope that's been helpful. Best wishes and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed response.
To discuss source 1 more and the status of interviews as reliable sources (something I'd like to be clear on if I continue on Wikipedia), if not also about research methodology: on the question of determining when, in this case, a band formed, there are situations where a researcher will rely on an original interview of a primary source / subject to determine certain facts. The assumption is that as an academic or reputable journalist following best practice, one must fact check or verify however possible. In many cases there will be no reliable independent objective source to check e.g. a birth certificate of a band, rather, one has to interview or collate other sources, all of which might not be seen as reliable in the Wikipedian definition, but which, on the whole, can be presented as robust, critically independent, and reliable i.e. a researcher establishes a wider context to prove otherwise unreliable claims.
Put more simply, sometimes all you can do is ask the person for a fact only they know, and they might not even be sure (e.g. when a band formed: at a gig, in the studio, at a meeting, in their head as an idea years before any of the above), but as a researcher you then have to build a critical context to prove or disprove their statement.
Hopefully this is not too anal, but what I mean with this point is that if one dismisses interviews as wholly unreliable, this assumes that the substance of said article has not itself been researched, verified, and judged accurated by the interview author, in this case a writer for Japan Times, a reputable journalistic outfit. My reading of it leads me to believe with confidence that the writer has check the facts provided by the subject, and on the referenced point in question, about when the band formed.
I can think of many interviews where the authorial voice is very much with the interviewer rather than interviewee, and where the former is making some kind of critique of the latter. And so, I question whether articles that contain a mixture of both interview content and original prose should be dismissed in such contexts, because often, in cases where interviewers maintain a critical distance from their subjects, they demonstrate an independent reliability e.g. fact checking, or explaining the interviewees comments when they might be false, misleading, or inaccurate.
I share all this coming from an academic background myself, and in which I find there is often more grey than black and white with these types of epistemological issues.
Still, I'll try to look into Japanese sources using web translate tools in case there are any easy finds of further reliable sources. Queremalense (talk) 06:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Queremalense, you did raise a point that I should have mentioned but forgot - my apologies. You are absolutely correct that some information can only really be known by the people involved, and we do accept that kind of basic information (birthdate, partner's name, band creation) from interviews. However, the interview cannot contribute to notability. So you can certainly use the interview as a reference for the band's birthdate, as it were, but it's generally ruled out as a source that will establish that they are in fact notable.
It's possible that if you have an interview that has clearly done fact checking and is prepared to call out false or misleading information, that might be usable as a reliable source. It would probably need a consensus of editors, though - perhaps on WikiProject Music or failing that at Requests for Comment - because you are likely to run into the same problem from another angle, namely that the interviewer might be biased against the subject rather than biased towards them. I'm sure this situation would have come up before in Wikipedia's history but don't know where to even start looking. The Teahouse or Help Desk might be able to find some examples if you're interested in that path.
Thanks for pointing that out, and best of luck with the source hunt! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

00:17, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Banjo Bilby

Hi there, I have added lots of references from academic journals and gov websites, however, it keeps getting rejected on the grounds of referencing. Can I gets some tips and help please? Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Banjo Bilby: Anything from Arid Recovery's own website is useless for notability and can only be used for uncontroversial claims (connexion to subject). Anything from Australia's government as a whole is also useless for notability by dint of being government sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arid Recovery website I get. The government pages are species profiles from the EPBC act, which is weird to ignore. Thanks for the help though. Banjo Bilby (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:25, 24 July 2024 review of submission by CymaSonic

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek guidance regarding an article I have been attempting to submit to Wikipedia. Despite my best efforts to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, my submissions have not been approved. I would like to emphasize that I have:

Carefully reviewed and followed Wikipedia's editing guidelines. Included numerous third-party references to support the article's content. Provided citations from reputable publishers to ensure the information's credibility. Made multiple revisions based on previous feedback (if applicable).

At this point, I feel I have exhausted my options for further edits without additional guidance. I would greatly appreciate your insights on:

Specific areas of the article that still require improvement. Any particular concerns about the current content or structure. Suggestions for additional sources or types of references that would strengthen the article. Any other steps I can take to meet Wikipedia's standards for publication.

Your expertise and advice would be invaluable in helping me understand how to proceed. I am committed to contributing high-quality content to Wikipedia and am eager to learn from your feedback. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to improve my submission. CymaSonic (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CymaSonic, using AI for guidance might not be effective, and it seems AI may have been used to write your draft, making it read promotional. Additionally, your draft lacks proper citations to reliable sources. Ignoring the decline notice, which includes reasons for the decline, is not advisable as it contains valuable information to help improve your draft. Please review it thoroughly and seek guidance before resubmitting. Cheers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @SafariScribe ,
Thank you for your prompt feedback on my draft. I appreciate your time and would like to address the points you raised:
  1. Use of AI: I want to clarify that I did not use AI to write the draft. My process involved organic Google searches to find existing resources, which I then verified individually. The guidance I followed came from Wikipedia's own guidelines.
  2. Citations and reliable sources: I understand your concern about proper citations. I'm currently investigating official links for the awards mentioned. For the career section, particularly regarding McKinsey (internship) and Itochu Corporation, I found it challenging to locate third-party articles due to the relatively minor nature of these positions in the subject's overall career.
  3. Promotional tone: I apologize if the draft came across as promotional. This was not my intention, and I will work on maintaining a more neutral, encyclopedic tone.
  4. Previous decline notices: I assure you that I have been carefully reading all feedback. If I've missed any crucial points, I sincerely apologize and would greatly appreciate if you could highlight them again.
Based on your feedback, I propose the following changes:
  1. Remove the career section that lacks strong third-party references.
  2. Focus on the awards and recent speaking engagements, ensuring each has verifiable sources.
  3. Revise the entire draft to ensure a neutral tone and compliance with Wikipedia's standards.
Would this approach be more suitable? I'm committed to improving this draft and would greatly appreciate any additional guidance you can provide.
Thank you for your patience and assistance in this process. CymaSonic (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CymaSonic: I have a couple of suggestions. The first is covered by the advice at WP:BACKWARDS. When you create a draft, each sentence should be based on what a source says. That way, you do not end up with content that is not apparently based on any source. Minor positions in a person's career that are not covered by secondary sources can safely be omitted from the draft.
I'd also like to point out the policy at WP:TRADEMARK to support removal of the TM and R symbols you've included in your draft. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your helpful feedback and advice on my draft article about Natsuyo N. Lipschutz. I greatly appreciate the time you took to review my submission and provide such constructive guidance.
I understand the importance of following the WP:BACKWARDS approach and will revise my draft accordingly, ensuring that each sentence is based on reliable secondary sources. I will also remove all trademark symbols as per the WP:TRADEMARK policy.
Your advice has been invaluable, and I plan to thoroughly revise the article based on your suggestions. I will focus on collecting reliable secondary sources and rebuilding the content from there.
Thank you again for your assistance. 47.16.14.168 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Tamsragow

My draft has been rejected twice due to unreliable sources, but I believe the issue is that the sources are in another language. Is this usually a problem or will I be able to get the draft approved with these sources? Tamsragow (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Sources do not need to be in English as long as they meet all other criteria for being a reliable source. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources in other languages are acceptable, if there are no equally good English ones. It often takes longer for a draft with non-English sources to get reviewed, because it will wait for a reviewer who can either read that language or is prepared to put them through a translator and review them.
However, if a reviewer has reviewed the draft, they will have looked at the sources in one of those ways, and concluded that they are inadequate.
Note that while the message say "reliable sources", there are three separate criteria that sources must meet - reliability, independence, and significant coverage; and it is often one of the others: see the golden rule. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you so much for responding. The sources I used are secondary and primary sources about the subject and the article was reviewed rather quickly despite the majority of the sources being in Hebrew (this makes me think that those reviewing do not understand the language). The majority of these exact sources were used in a Wikipedia article about the same subject on the Hebrew Wikipedia page and were accepted as entirely reliable. Are there different standards for the English one? Tamsragow (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, the sources were 100% checked by someone who understands the language even though they were once checked within 3 days? I just want to be sure. Tamsragow (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikipedia editors! I hope this finds you well. I am wondering if you find the website "nil.org.il" to be unreliable because many of my sources come from this website as it is the website for the National Archive of Israel, so many old news articles can only be found there. Was this the issue with my draft or were the sources found on this website reliable?
The sources included, https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/hadashot/1987/05/07/01/article/141?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/mar/1990/12/17/01/article/256?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/ahr/1950/05/09/01/article/29?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut,
and
https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dav/1964/05/22/01/article/158?&dliv=none&e=-------he-20--1--img-txIN%7ctxTI--------------1&utm_source=he.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=%22%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%99+%D7%A7%D7%A0%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%22&utm_content=itonut.
Additional sources were www.gov.il which is a statement from the Israeli government. https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/roots_1996_1/he/roots-1996-1.pdf
Was there an issue with these specific sources?
Please let me know! I really appreciate your time. Tamsragow (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NLI is not the source of these, but merely where they are to be found. The first is published by Hadashot, and the second by Maariv, and they should be cited with title, author, publisher (the newspaper), date, page number, and (optionally, for reader convenience) links to the NLI archive. Their reliability depends on that of the newspapers, possibly with other considerations as well, not on NLI. Since they are scans, Google translate won't work on the content, so I don't know how readily reviewers will be able to evaluate them (my Hebrew is pretty weak).
Statements from goverments are almost always primary sources, and do not contribute to establishing notability. Nor do any sources which do not meet the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject: see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! thank you so much for looking into my sources. Within the draft I wrote all of my sources are cited properly in the way that you described above (I just happened to describe them poorly in writing here), yet I am still having my draft declined due to "unreliable sources". Two reviews have been completed over the course of three days which have each had the same result. This makes me think that they are not being looked at properly, especially after being informed by two different Wikipedia reviewers that it takes a long time to look over sources such as these. I am just very confused as to which sources on my article draft are considered unreliable and would really appreciate some assistance. Please let me know! Tamsragow (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is likely that the only people who can answer that question is the particular editors who did the review. You are welcome to ask them for clarification, either here, (pinging them) or on their user talk pages. ColinFine (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Could you please answer the above question regarding the sources on my draft? I am just looking to understand which sources in my draft are considered unreliable and why. I would really appreciate the assistance! Thanks so much. Tamsragow (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsragow: while waiting for SafariScribe to answer your specific question, I can meanwhile tell you that the draft is very sparsely referenced, with a lot of content unsupported by citations. As a bare minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation supporting it, and also end in a citation, and that's only enough where a) the paragraph is short, and b) the one source genuinely supports everything in the paragraph. In general, it would be best to support every material statement and anything potentially contentious, as well as all biographical details, so that it is clear to the reader where the information comes from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamsragow, when we say that a draft is not properly sourced, it just doesn't imply that your citations are unreliable, it can as well mean that some sections lack sufficient sources. Specifically, your draft has a promotional tone that needs to be revised. Focus on essential information, like his surfing career, and remove unnecessary details. Please add sources to support the sections on mostly, the "Early life and education" and "Legal studies and lifeguard training". I am baffled that the statement "Topsea died at age 77" isn't sourced. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 24 July 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

This article was immediately declined due to supposably lack of resources and references. However, there are plenty of references in the article, noting the subject by name, and extensively. The subject also has an article in Hebrew. Also, There are old magazines from the 80's which are not online, but I have referred to one of them in the article. would it be good to refer to more of them? עומר תשבי (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: "plenty of references" isn't the point, it's the quality we look for, not quantity; 30 flaky sources will not establish notability, whereas 3 solid ones may well do. I've not done a source analysis, but I did notice that there are several sources cited which contribute nothing towards notability.
Whether there exists an article on this subject in the Hebrew-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is entirely separate and acceptance into one language version does not guarantee acceptance into others.
And yes, offline sources are acceptable, as long as they otherwise are up to the required standards in terms of reliability etc. See WP:OFFLINE for advice on citing them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I will add offline (notable) sources. Second, these are not flaky sources: This are prominent Israeli news websites, websites of academic institutions, etc. I think that If you would analyze these sources, you will see that not only they directly refer to the subject, but that there are notable sources. עומר תשבי (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source, if it is going to contribute to establishing that the subject meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, must meet the triple criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage of the subject, as explained at WP:42. Looking through your list of citations, I several that are obviously not independent, such as patents, and lists of boards of governors. In some cases there can be value to using such sources, but generally, they add absolutely nothing to an article. If an independent sources discusses that somebody has a patent, that is great. If not independent source does so, why should we be interested in it? Ditto appearances on boards of directors?
Then the Times of Israel article says very little about Ziv-Av, except to quote him: so, do the degree that it has significant coverage, it is not independent.
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) 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the Hebrew references, they meet the criteria. Iv'e edited the article, added offline sources, and polished it more. עומר תשבי (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Belarusgap

Hej, I made English translation of the Belarusian-approved page https://be.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%96%D0%BB%D1%96%D1%8F_%D0%91%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0. So why the English page should be different one when it comes to sources? Also, many Belarusian Wikipedia articles include facebook and instagram links- why is this allowed? Best regards, Ludmila Belarusgap (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Belarusgap: the Belarusian and English Wikipedias are completely separate project, and what is acceptable on one, may not be on the other. Any article accepted here must comply with our policies and guidelines, and the English-language Wikipedia has probably the strictest requirements in terms of notability and verifiability of any language version.
Specifically, social media, such as Facebook and IG, is user-generated, and as such not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. I just feel that it gets too complicated. Belarusgap (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Mateo radovan

Hi, can you please tell me what do I need to change, its pointless for me to keep changing and you keep declining everything I change. SatelitteChange 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mateo radovan: you need to show that this subject is notable, by citing sources which satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG. That requires secondary sources that are independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. Your draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 21:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I have wrote anything about myself lol, and also everything I could find on the internet is already cited. SatelitteChange 13:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:19, 24 July 2024 review of submission by 151.69.99.82

We are trying to get this published but keep having it declined. The only external reference we have available is a newspaper article with his obituary. Will this work? 

151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all you have is a single source, you will find it all but impossible to establish that the subject is notable.
If the obit is reliable (meaning, written by a professional journalist or subject-matter expert, and published in a reliable secondary source such as major newspaper), it probably is good enough for verifying the information, but note that not all obits are like that, some are written by a personal acquaintance or relative of the deceased, etc. In any case, a single source isn't ideal for verifying an entire article.
Did all the information in this draft really come from that one source, then? If so, I hope you didn't directly translate or even too closely paraphrase what it said, because that could violate the source's copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we send you a copy of the article. I do not know the journalist. The newspaper is a major one here yes ofcourse. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


We are not really sure how to have this published, Vidal and Pino Silvestre are household names in Italy. It is like asking a Japanese person if Sony or Toyota exist. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a household name, you should have no difficulty in finding reliable sources to establish they are a notable person. Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a problem with using these prefered pronouns? We are comfortable using We/Us/Ours. Do you have an issue with this? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of asking about our pronouns maybe you can be practical and explain how "we" can reference. Do we have to upload articles? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, usually "we" refers to plural and Wikipedia accounts can only be used by a single person. If your chosen singular pronouns are "we/us/ours" that's fine, but it's normal for us to ask that. Qcne (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sources do not need to exist online and they don't have to be in English, but the draft has to make it clear which bit of information is verified by which source. Assuming that you are User:Artico13 (please remember to log in!), there is more information on your user talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it isn't the same as Sony or Toyota, because plenty of sources exist on those, both for notability and verifiability purposes. Whereas you're saying all you have a single source. Ergo, it's not a comparable situation at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using Toyota or Sony as examples highlights how universally recognized these brands are in Japan, similar to how Italian brands Vidal and Pino Silvestre are well-known in Italy. If you were to stop a Japanese person on the street and mention Toyota or Sony, they would immediately recognize these brands due to their prominence in everyday life. The same goes for Italians with Vidal and Pino Silvestre. In fact, if you were to walk into any supermarket in Italy, you would find Vidal and Pino Silvestre products readily available.
The very reason we are writing this article is to address the lack of comprehensive references for a company that holds a similar status, albeit on a local level and not comparing global financial power. This is a service not only to Italy and Venice but to the general public. We need to add articles to the reference section, is this what you are requesting? 151.69.99.82 (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The very reason we are writing this article is to address the lack of comprehensive references for a company". In other words, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. That is not permitted. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the response given above about the same draft. --bonadea contributions talk 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content like ”widely recognized as one of the most famous cosmetic brands in Italy, synonymous with quality and tradition” is ridiculous in an encyclopaedia WP:TNT is required here and a complete re-write in a dry neutral tone referring only to what independent, reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by IqbalHossain

Korvi Rakshand received the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2023. He also received several international awards. And many international news media wrote on his works. So, why the submission request decline? which points should be improved? I need instructions. Thanks in advance. --- IqbalHossain (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IqbalHossain: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 24 July 2024 review of submission by TRTGUSA

Why was my article rejected? TRTGUSA (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TRTGUSA: It was rejected and will not be considered further because you wrote an advert for TRTG. We have zero tolerance for being used as a billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Artico13

I have added some references and removed the peackcok words. The tone seems netural now. Artico13 (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artico13: No, it doesn't. Your sourcing is also poor. What is your connexion to Vidal or his estate? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, really helpful. I don't know how to source properly. I am not trying to promote the company as someone suggested in bad faith as it no longer exists and there is no connection as the person is deceased. 151.69.99.82 (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason we're thinking there's a connexion to the subject here is because the draft is promotional. One doesn't "accidentally" write a promotional article like this. You might also notice that I specifically asked what your connexion was to Vidal or his estate. As to your sources, your second source 404s out and your third source doesn't really discuss Lino Vitale specifically in any real depth, being instead about the Pino Silvestre brand. Your first source - the print version of your second source, it seems - is missing required bibiographical information (byline, page numbers). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artico13: please don't open a new thread, just add to the exiting one. You now have three threads on this page. And please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 24 July 2024 review of submission by Sebastián Herrera Monterrosa

I want to know why the publication has been denied. I consider the citation to be legitimate. It is on the website of a reference in operations research. What is needed for publication to be possible? Sebastián Herrera Monterrosa (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for declining is in the grey boxes the submission is NOT adequately supported by reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and the single reference is a passing mention and contributes nothing to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

02:23, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC


Extended content

English Series On 2 is an English series drama slot that airs at 8.00 - 9.00 pm, Friday - Sunday, on TV2.

2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paste the entire draft here. I've collapsed it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC

Don't let Waxworker was removed & delete at Draft:List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia). Waxworker Please open from the lock on List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia) 2001:D08:1288:27B5:1:0:539D:86AC (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what, if anything, you're asking, but there already exists an article on this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing (and other interested editors), I believe the IP is upset because editor Waxworker removed unsourced content that they wanted included in the article. The article is semi-protected for persistent disruptive editing so they cannot re-add the unsourced content. Definitely a novel way of approaching the situation. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly your deciphering skills are more advanced than mine... DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, I spent most of my career working with academics in the medical field...if you thought doctors' tendency to abbreviate in awful handwriting was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Aruns012

Why The Page Has Been Removed Aruns012 (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruns012: the page hasn't been removed (whatever that means); this draft has been rejected, and is awaiting speedy deletion, as non-notable and promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 4everbg

I am doing something wrong with the citations, but I cannot understand what. I add citation sources, I have References at the bottom, yet I am not citing properly and any help is welcomed :) 4everbg (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4everbg the citations are proper, but you'll need to add more. As your draft is about a living person, we need citations for all statements. Currently the entire "Personal life" and parts of the "Early life and education" sections are unsourced. It is also unclear how she meets our notability guidelines for people. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! 4everbg (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Ouill

I'm not quite sure I understand the reasons for the rejection. The page Notability_(academics) says that for academics, secondary sources on their bibliography are may not exist (this would typically be the case for a person who died when internet was in its early stages), and are typically not required. Instead, it must be clear that the contribution of the academic to their field should be significant. Here the academic had 2 different special volumes dedicated to his memory shortly after his death, with well-known international experts in 2 different fields contributing to the volume. This is really a clear, concrete sign of the impact of the researcher.

I haven't mentioned in the article that he was an editor of Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, one of the top journals in combinatorics, during several years and until his death. Should I add it ? I don't have an online reference for that (the journal does not record his former editors), but editors appear on the cover of all physical volumes so it is easy to check if your have access to the physical volumes. Ouill (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ouill: I think it's debatable whether those memorial publications are enough proof that he meets WP:NACADEMIC #1; perhaps, perhaps not. Therefore, if he was the chief editor of the journal you mention, then it is certainly worth including in the draft, as that sounds like it would directly satisfy NACADEMIC #8. We do need to see evidence of that, though; it isn't enough to say that evidence can be found somewhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by BlueRoses13

Hello editors,

On July 7, my draft for Linda Rabbitt was rejected:

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

The same day, on my Talk page, I asked the responding editor to clarify his objections, while I provided additional support, at length. He did not respond:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BlueRoses13#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Linda_Rabbitt_(July_6)

On July 17, I followed-up with the editor on his Talk page. On July 18, he said they'd get back to me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SafariScribe#Can_you_help_me_understand_why_you_rejected_my_draft_for_Linda_Rabbitt?

It is now July 25, and I haven't heard back.

I'm reluctant to ping this editor again; I don't want to be a pest, especially since he is super busy elsewhere:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SafariScribe

Yet I remain in the dark and eager to contribute. Any chance another editor can take a look? I'd be grateful for your take.

Thank you kindly.

Sincerely, BlueRoses13 (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If the other editor is busy, they will likely get around to you when they can. Please be patient.
You have basically summarized Linda's resume, and not independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of her, detailing what makes her a notable person as Wikipedia defines it. That she runs a large company isn't sufficient- you need to have sources that discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about her. Does she run the company with a unique business strategy? Had a particular personal influence on the construction industry in the Washington area? Something like that. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Many thanks for your speedy reply and for clarifying the difference between "declined" and "rejected"; I was unaware of this distinction.
As to Linda's importance, here are 3 quotes that clarify her notability — I think the first speaks directly to your question as to whether she's influenced the construction industry:
1. She is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow).
2. She is ”one of the most influential people in Washington area business” (The Washington Post).
3. She is “one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian).
Does this help?
Thank you again.
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueRoses13, you aren't covered in the dark and I am sorry for not following up. My analysis for declining the draft was that, while she owns a company, her style and biography shouldn't be inherited only from being the CEO and founder of it—Rand. Entrepreneurs are sometimes difficult to establish notability, but here's a helpful analysis to help you further. Don't think that the personal life and background offers notability. No, everyone can be educated even in a notable school and get a publication for that. Your interest should be a) Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand b) Being the CEO can be notable but not an assurance. Is their any unique way she handles the industry?—independent evidence of sources—lacking promo and advertorial contents c) Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines d) Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand e) When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies. These are my analysis and another editor can object or suggest otherwise. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Thanks so much for your detailed analysis. I’m most grateful for the time you took to identify these specifics. Let me see if I can respond.
a. Who's Linda and why would she be considered as a notable woman? Is it only founding and being the CEO of Rand
I think she satisfies WP:BIO for two reasons.
First, she is "widely viewed as a pioneering female executive in the construction industry" (Bisnow). Specifically, she's one of the only female CEOs in the construction industry (The Washington Post), and the company she founded and runs is D.C.'s largest, woman-owned construction contractor (The Washington Post).
Second, she is "one of the most powerful women in the business community" (Washingtonian). The Washington Post calls her “one of the most influential." Specifically, she’s served on the boards of — and, in some cases, chaired — what are generally regarded as the two most influential business groups in the nation’s capitol: the Federal City Council and the Greater Washington Board of Trade. And she chaired one of 12 regional banks (Richmond) which make up the Federal Reserve System.
c. Are there publications of her about how she has been successful?; series of books or articles on newspapers and magazines
Yes indeed! In 2016, Linda, her philosophy, and her success were profiled in a Harvard Business School case study. HBS case studies are big deals.
Similarly, the Washington Post profiled her success in both 1998 and 2002.
Another profile comes from the Washington Business Journal (Peter Kaplan, “In a hard-hat world, she’s a success by anyone’s standards,” Washington Business Journal, December 16-22, 1994, page 18). This one is not online, but I can share a PDF if you’d like.
d. Show publications that has significantly covered her while being independent of her status as just the CEO of Rand
Check out this article in the New York Times that highlights Linda's role in financing an executive education program, at George Washington University, to teach women how to be corporate board members. See also this profile in the New York Times that tells Linda's life story.
e. When we exclude Rand, is there anything notable about her? Here if there isn't, then Rand deserves an article and your draft becomes a redirect to it. Having said that, serving as a board member isn't a necessity but can be if she has served in multiple notable companies.
Yes, she’s served on the boards of directors of — and in some cases chaired — entities that each have their own Wikipedia pages:
-Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
-Willis Towers Watson
-Children's National Medical Center
-The Economic Club of Washington, D.C.
Also, she's been the president of the Washington chapters of Commercial Real Estate Women and the International Women's Forum.
Finally, she's received various recognitions from entities that each have their own Wikipedia page:
-In 2016, the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans named her “lifetime member.”
-In 2008, the nonprofit youth organization, Junior Achievement, inducted her into the Washington Business Hall of Fame.
-In 2012, the National Association of Corporate Directors named her a Director of the Year.
-In 2018, Commercial Real Estate Women gave her the inaugural Joseph Stettinius Jr. Leadership Award, which recognizes a leader in the real estate business.
I've incorporated the above details (with the exception of the last 4 recognitions) in Linda's draft. What do you think?
Thank you again for your help.
Sincerely,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Artistdrdebasis

I am a new Wikipedia editor and asking help for publish the said article. I could not understand the problems. Please help for further processing. Artistdrdebasis (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistdrdebasis: your draft is completely unreferenced, and provides no evidence that the subject is notable.
Also, note that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Anshley Raggoo

What should I do for Wikipedia Users has access to this information? Anshley Raggoo (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anshley Raggoo: This draft has been rejected, is awaiting speedy deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion, and will not be considered further. What is your connexion to Spine Footwear? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, "spine footwear" sounds horribly uncomfortable and a tad macabre. --bonadea contributions talk 19:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Artlin2

Regarding review for submission. Aside from Instagram, please note and check under References on the draft page "Chitra Ramanathan" for verifying different publications by different art-related and art industry sources, including interviews and biographies written on the artist. Artlin2 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and press releases do not contribute to notability, as they are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please define conflict of interest is, and secondly what would define independent sources for this article's re-submission by Geoffrey Lane. The subject of the article will not be re-submitting it, and so who would be? Artlin2 (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artlin2, you can find more info about conflicts of interest at the page linked on your draft: WP:COI. In short, if you personally know Ramanathan, you are likely to have a conflict of interest. We are asking, basically - how do you know her?
Independent sources are sources that have been created without any connection to the subject. For example, an interview is not independent because the interviewer has spoken directly to the subject. On the other hand, a book about the Tudor dynasty is definitely independent as the author is writing solely because of their interest in the topic.
Does that help at all? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. The page was created by some wiki writers in 2022. So my question who would be identifying individual subjects for the written, as I will not be writing or editing. Artlin2 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 25 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B

The English Series On 2 slot is shown every Friday - Sunday, at 8:00 pm. 

2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, please stop creating and submitting drafts related to this topic [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16].
We know you want to add programs to List of programmes broadcast by TV2 (Malaysia), but this is not the way to do it. You are wasting your own time as well as the time of volunteer reviewers. Please use the talk page of the article to request the edits you want, and remember to provide reliable sources. If you continue submitting drafts like this, you are likely to be blocked. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:11, 25 July 2024 review of submission by Xuexi8823

I've written it repeatedly. But my writings were always rejected. I used reliable secondary sources as much as possible. I am really confused that reviews always just demand so-called reliable secondary sources', but they don't mention which quote or part had problems. It would be helpful if you pointed them out. Thank you in advance. Xuexi8823 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xuexi8823, sorry you've been waiting a while for a reply.
I'll start by saying that @Cabrils has given you some great advice in the comments on your draft already. Working your way through those suggestions would be a great start. You especially need to answer, on your talk page, the question as to whether you have a conflict of interest - this is extremely important. You should also not resubmit the draft until the issues Cabril raised have been addressed, or you run the risk of the draft being rejected on the grounds that you are unable to improve it and thus it will never be accepted.
To give you an idea of which sources are useful to you and which are not, I'll go through the first few and then you'll hopefully be able to work through the rest! Cabrils has already linked you to the relevant requirements for sources, so I won't repeat the links. As a reminder, if a source isn't reliable, independent, and significantly covering the subject, it does not establish notability. You need all three criteria met for each source you are using to show that Gromes is notable.
Source 1 (Frankfurter) is an interview with the subject, so it is not an independent source.
Source 2 (Wegotmusic) is also an interview, see 1.
Source 3 (Musiktage Mondsee) comes from a company she performed for, so it is not independent.
Source 4 (Deutscher) appears to be advertising her as a performer, so it is not independent.
Source 5 (RSI) tells us she won an award, which is perfect as verification, but it's too short to establish notability. I'm going to assume you only wanted this source to demonstrate she won the award, which is totally fine to do.
At this point I decided to skip forward and check only the sources that looked most likely to be notable, which were:
Source 15 (The Strad) is another interview with her, and primarily about her cello, so it's not independent and not significant coverage.
Source 16 (Violin Channel) is also about her cello, so it's not significant coverage.
So far I don't see any sources that look likely to be usable; I think you should probably cancel the current resubmission (so the draft isn't declined again) and go on a hunt for more sources. Remember that interviews don't help establish notability, and if she worked for or with a company then their site won't help either. Best wishes with finding some great sources, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @StartGrammarTime ,
Thank you for your feedback.
But I decided to give up writing the article because I realized that I would not be able to continue writing it and using quotes based on your advice.
After spending approximately 20 hours writing the article and searching for sources to satisfy the reviewers' requests as much as possible, I am now completely exhausted due to some rejections and too strict demands.
I don't think it's possible to find the quotes they require. I'm truly disappointed that my effort was wasted. But perhaps my prediction was too optimistic to write the article to satisfy the demands.
I tried to write the article to contribute to classic music lovers around the world, but I am absolutely tired to continue writing.
But again, thank you for your advice. I really appreciate it.
Best regards,
Xuexi8823 Xuexi8823 (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xuexi8823, I'm sorry to hear this is the case. Unfortunately, a lot of people - a lot of subjects in general - aren't notable by Wikipedia standards, so it can be very frustrating to spend so much time working on a draft that doesn't really have a chance. Writing articles is the hardest thing to do in Wikipedia, and writing articles about a living person is the hardest of all. One last piece of advice for you is to read WP:BACKWARDS - this is how most new editors try to write an article, and I think you might have written your draft this way. Look for sources first; that way, if you don't find suitable sources, you won't waste any more time and effort. There are subjects I think really deserve an article, but I just can't find good sources and so I'm waiting until someone independent notices them and writes about them. Sometimes it's simply too soon.
I hope you stick around to edit articles, or come back to do so if you need a break right now. We have so many articles in need of a helping hand, and editing is much easier than writing a new article! You are always welcome to come and contribute as much or as little as you like to improve Wikipedia. StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

04:16, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Asyrofazman

I good person Asyrofazman (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asyrofazman, I am sure you're a wonderful person, but you are not notable by Wikipedia standards - and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:41, 26 July 2024 review of submission by 2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9

tell me where i done mistake 

2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please log into one of your accounts and ask again? This whole thing is getting a bit silly, with multiple drafts, multiple user accounts, etc., and we need to start sorting out this mess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 26 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B

Yes 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SONYBIJI/sandbox

hi its my first article .can you tell me my mistake in this article SONYBIJI (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SONYBIJI: assuming you mean User:SONYBIJI/sandbox, this was previously declined and subsequently deleted as promotional, and this time declined as blank.
What is your relationship with this 'Centre for Research on Cyber Intelligence and Digital Forensics (CRCIDF)'? I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:17, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος

Hi there please guide me so i can understand the issues that came up with the article i wrote so i can fix them because i cannot understand where is the problem. Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just answered this on my talk page. Please don't ask in many places, it just causes extra work and confusion. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Arafatislamontor

Why my bio data was rejected? and how can i add myself on wikipedia? Arafatislamontor (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Your 'bio data'(that's a weird way of saying autobiography) was deleted because it was pure self-promotion.
  2. You don't. You are likely not notable, and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Mtrexm

Hello, I'm hoping to clarify why this draft was declined. I cited several peer-reviewed publications. Is it just a formatting issue? Any help would be much appreciated, thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtrexm: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that corroborates it or (failing that) removed outright. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, so even things like where they went to school? I see several spots in the beginning now that could use citations if that is the case. Thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even things like where they went to school, their birthday and where they were born, etc. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you, I will fix it. I really appreciate the help. Mtrexm (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Scholar.me.Squad

Hello, with regard to my article's appearance seeming more like an advertisement than encyclopedia content, I am doing my best to model it from existing Wikipedia pages, such as this one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearanceJobs You'll note the similar style, similar citations, etc. I am happy to work on this article of mine more and do my very best to bring better scholarship to the article. I am trying to create a page that shows in an informative way the work of this business and how it is solving for a unique Department of Defense need, much the same way ClearanceJobs Wikipedia page shows how it does the same for the broader intelligence community. Please guide me so I can improve and meet standards of Wikipedia.

Most Kindly, Anthony Niles Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware in citing other articles to justify yours, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.
Your main issue is that you have no sources other than the company website. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to 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. We don't want to know what the company says about itself, we want to know others say about it.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance. I have since scrubbed the document of any self referencing citations and have included proper citations that bring into the article good quality references rather than things that relate to the article. I will do further research and see what I can find as to other outside references and sources that have published about jobswithdod.com to support the article. Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

Wan Muhammad Asyrof Bin Wan Azman

Wan Muhammas Asyrof Bin Wan Azman is birth at 28 June 2006.Wan Muhammad Asyrof is a political figure at PAS(Parti Islam Semalaysia).Her mother is named Maziah binti Majid and his father is named Wan Azman Bin Wan Yusoff.He now lived at Kampung Alur Mak Bah 23000,Dungun,Terengganu,Malaysia. Asyrofazman (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asyrofazman: nowhere in that is there a question. And Draft:Wan Muhammad Asyrof Bin Wan Azman has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further (in case you were wondering). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha

I am seeking assistance for feedback on my recent submission. I would like to address the concern regarding the subject's notability and the coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

The entire article focuses on the author and provides extensive information. In addition to the online references provided, there are also significant offline sources that I have cited, including reputable newspaper articles. These sources offer in-depth coverage and are crucial in establishing the subject's notability.

Furthermore, I have previously communicated with a reviewer who declined my article for similar reasons. I had ermailed him through the reviewer's talk page email i found and provided attachments of all offline resorces i had in which he advised that the inclusion of offline sources is acceptable and can be used to support the subject's notability.

I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if there are any specific adjustments or additional information required to facilitate the approval of the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Rasilshrestha Rasilshrestha (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasilshrestha: you say you're seeking assistance, but it's not clear what sort of assistance you're asking for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
I was seeking assistance regarding my article not adequately being supported by reliable sources and that the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
I have added sources to some News Portal of Nepal various articles published in NepalKhoj , Kantipur , Annapurna Post etc. The articles i have added as refrences are about the author himself or his literature works in field of Nepali Literature.Also I had emailed Fade258 [e-mail address redacted] regarding the offline resources i had collected from old newspapers and also sent him the images as attachment and was told that i could add them to my article. I then resubmitted my article, it was again denied by SafariScribe with the same reasons.
So, can you please help me out.
Thank You, Rasilshrestha (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rasilshrestha:. Sorry for late response. I appreciate your work but still that draft needs reliable and independent sources to the subject. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Nycamylee

Hi, I am still a beginner to Wikipedia. I did my submission for an Article for Creation. And I thought I have inserted enough Newspaper articles and the references from reliable sources. But it still gives me these messages.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

We have a case of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT here. The foundation alone contains information with bare sources more than the biography itself. Please provide reliable sources citations to the content.

Honestly I don't quite understand what it requires more. Could you please advise me what I should to do pass the requirements? 

Nycamylee (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycamylee: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Collins P Mabasa

Article has been rejected Collins P Mabasa (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Collins P Mabasa yes, it has, and it will be deleted soon. There is nothing to suggest that you are notable (another Wikipedia article and your company's website don't establish notability), and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself anyway. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 27 July 2024 review of submission by TonyGadreal

I can't uploaded my article TonyGadreal (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected due to refusal to address the reviewers' criticisms of it and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyGadreal: Re-signing for botched ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 27 July 2024 review of submission by SisterPhraed

Nearly all of my citations are from print newspapers and can be found online - I'm not sure why these are not acceptable. SisterPhraed (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SisterPhraed: From the looks of it you're missing required bibliographical information for the lot of them, and unnecessarily (and confusingly) merging multiple sources into one cite:
  • Cite 1 is missing byline
  • Cite 2 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources (each of these needs to be its own cite)
  • Cite 3 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources (one of which is also missing a page number)
  • Cite 4 is missing byline
  • Cite 5 is a malformed URL
  • Cite 6 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources (two of which are also missing page numbers)
  • Cite 7 is missing byline and page numbers
  • Cite 8 is missing byline
  • Cite 9 is missing byline, edition, work, and page numbers (if a periodical) and author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and ISBN/OCLC# (if a book)
  • Cite 10 is missing bylines and seems to be citing four separate sources (two of which are also missing page numbers)
  • Cite 11 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources
  • Cite 12 is missing bylines and seems to be citing seven separate sources
  • Cite 13 is missing bylines and seems to be citing four separate sources
  • Cite 14 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
  • Cite 15 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources
  • Cite 16 is missing byline
  • Cite 17 is missing bylines and seems to be citing eight separate sources
  • Cite 18 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
  • Cite 19 is missing byline
  • Cite 20 is missing byline
  • Cite 21 is missing byline
  • Cite 22 is missing byines and seems to be citing six separate sources
  • Cite 23 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
  • Cite 24 is missing publisher and ISBN/OCLC#
  • Cite 25 is flat-out uncitable in the first place (we don't cite personal correspondence)
  • Cite 26 is useless for notability (gov't document; this includes death certificates)
  • We can't cite Find A Grave (no editorial oversight)
You need to separate out all your merged cites, find the required bibliographical information, and use {{cite news}}/{{cite book}} for each and every one of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise (sic) information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research."

I'm sorry, but this comment doesn't make sense to me - the article summarizes the information in multiple reliably cited sources - none of it is my opinion! Do I need to include names of the sources within the article rather than just in the endnotes? SisterPhraed (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SisterPhraed, addressing just this comment - can I suggest you have a look at the way some Featured Articles (best of the best) are structured, and use them as a pattern for yours? Here are two for female singers, both working around the same time as your subject: Marie Lloyd and Kathleen Ferrier. You can find tons more articles that would make a good reference for what to do with your draft at WikiProject Musicians' Featured Articles list. Wikipedia articles are set out in a fairly consistent way, so have a go at putting yours into sections as you see in the ones I've linked. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SisterPhraed (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I try to include more personal details, as in the other two articles, there are complaints - so we'll see! SisterPhraed (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SisterPhraed, the trick there is to make sure that you're citing a reliable source for everything you add. Remember to find sources first, and only add information to your draft if you have it in your sources!
Actually looking at your draft again - it's not a draft, it's been published! Congratulations! You've successfully completed one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, take a moment to be proud of yourself :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your advice and comments! SisterPhraed (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Majeed-ul-Hassan

which reliable source or references you accepted for verification of article? Are you accepting youtube channels or dramas on youtube for references and interviews on it? 

Majeed-ul-Hassan (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Majeed-ul-Hassan: We can only use YouTube as a source if (1) the video is produced by an agency we consider to have editorial oversight (such as al-Jazeera) and (2) that video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. We also have far stricter and MANDATORY sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons, and this includes autobiographies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Maham28

I wrote a draft and would love the insight on what makes these references unreliable? Maham28 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

www.giftmarket.com.sg is a primary source so not independent, interviews with and content written by the owners is also not independent, so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 27 July 2024 review of submission by SisterPhraed

Please delete this draft article - thanks! SisterPhraed (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that yourself by tagging it with {{db-g7}} at the top. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Artlin2

A page titled above was written and published on Wikipedia in June 2022 where it was featured along with photos.

Two years later, it’s in a draft. Can a reliable source such as esteemed Wikipedia writers re-publish it. Artlin2 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Chitra Ramanathan
Previously on AFCHD: [17]
@Artlin2, I see submitting this draft was one of the first things you did as a Wikipedia editor. Have you worked on this draft before? If not, how did you find it?
Could you also please tell us how you know Chitra Ramanathan? You have been asked this before but did not answer. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear StartGrammer,
In response, Chitra Ramanathan is publicly noticed for over 25 years into the present period by varied sources through features on different art related websites, articles and reviews. Earlier this year (January 2024) the artist was recognized with the International Tagore Award.
Secondly, the review was submitted upon direction by Wikipedia editor Geoffrey Lane.
However, should the references including that are featured in the Reference section on Wikipedia/the draft still not meet criteria, please delete the article. Thanks again. Artlin2 (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artlin2: This does not answer the question. Your draft will not be accepted until you disclose how you know the subject. C F A 💬 00:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that upon rereading the previous discussion, it seems to me that Artlin2 has not edited the draft under their current username and in fact does not intend to edit the draft (based on '...[s]o my question who would be identifying individual subjects for the written, as I will not be writing or editing.'). If that is a misinterpretation, I would be very happy to be corrected. Otherwise, we may be wasting our time trying to help an editor who has no intention of accepting advice. I hope this is not the case. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this account was a sock of Amansharma111 (a large WP:UPE farm that has been involved with this draft). Vertacool and Asmbg3 are probably also involved in this. I'll hold off on filing an SPI for now in case they have any convincing evidence to suggest otherwise. C F A 💬 01:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

08:38, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Bdbotaimtopro

Please add now this article authentic and real Bdbotaimtopro (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdbotaimtopro: can you please stop messing with this and the other similar draft. You're a blocked user, you are not allowed to edit at all. And these drafts have been rejected as non-notable. I've also issued you a final warning for removing AfC tags, but you keep doing it regardless. Expect to blocked sooner or later (hopefully sooner). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Tizzythewhale

I this article is not approved, as it contains all sources Tizzythewhale (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizzythewhale that isn't a question, but the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. His bio on platforms where he teaches don't establish notability, and the draft is promotional in tone. Also, the draft contains 2 images you uploaded as own work; what is your relationship with him? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Pemba.mpimaji

I added another source (governmental training handout for local officers) and the draft refers now to SIX published sources that are: 

   in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
   reliable
   secondary
   independent of the subject

The topic has thus been dealt with in as much detail as possible. I cannot grasp why this entry is constantly being denied. It has more substance than a lot of other wikipedia articles. Pemba.mpimaji (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pemba.mpimaji: Under no circumstances are government-created sources secondary. If they did not originate from the government themselves, then they were compiled by them from information provided by the subject. We can't use ResearchGate (no editorial oversight); cite the original paper and not the mirror of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pemba.mpimaji, the draft was rejected a week ago - that means you cannot submit it again, as the reviewers think it's clear that the topic is not notable by Wikipedia standards. In case you want to try to write a draft on another topic, I'll quickly analyse your sources. I strongly recommend you spend more time working on other articles before beginning another draft, though.
Source 1 and 3 are government documents; they are not secondary, and not independent of the subject.
Sources 2 and 6 are PhD theses; these should only be used with caution as they are often primary sources and we don't know how reliable they are. ResearchGate, as Jeske says, cannot be used at all; 6 mentions gibana only in passing, and so is not significant coverage.
Source 4 is a World Bank report and does not discuss gibana in any meaningful way, so it is not significant coverage.
Source 5 is one I cannot access, but even if it's a usable source it is not enough by itself.
I hope this helps you in future source finding, and in the meantime I wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Birth65

Hi- I am new to Wiki. My first submission was denied and sent back for editing. I was wondering how to see what changes/edits need to be made. I cannot locate the suggested edits. 

Birth65 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 This appears to be an unusual decline. There is no rationale given. I will look further at this 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assistance. It is greatly appreciated. Birth65 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 I have reverted the decline as vandalism, and warned the editor as to their behaviour, I'm sorry this has happened to you, it is an abnormal experience. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel competent to review this effectively. My annoyance at the vandalism has affected my clear-sightedness on this draft. Perhaps someone else will look at it "early" as a compensation to Birth65 for their experience. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I greatly appreciate your support. That was very kind and supportive of you. May I ask, should I return to the edit page and click "submit" again? I apologize for the inconvenience. Birth65 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 I reverted it to the "already submitted state" so it has returned to where it should be. Even after submission you are able and allowed to continue to improve it wherever you can.
Thank you for your comments. I feel I was neither kind nor supportive, but simply acted as I hope and expect any editor here to do on behalf of any other editor. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent That is good to know. And leaves me appreciative of the excellent standards Editors hold themselves to on this platform. Birth65 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 we are fallible because we are human, but we try very hard to get it right. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Zelnikov

In accordance to the referee request I corrected and added very reliable references to the sources, however the article was rejected anyway. I don't see what is wrong now. Zelnikov (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelnikov: what is wrong now is that there are seven sections in this draft, and only one of them ('Research') is referenced. This would be problematic in any article, but is totally unacceptable in one on a living person (WP:BLP). Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

09:10, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Futbalove.talenty

I dont know how to publish this Wikipedia page Futbalove.talenty (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. It is competely unsourced, and no indication of notability has been given. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, it's highly recommended that new users first learn about the process by reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. You will also increase your chances of success by first spending much time (months if not years) editing existing articles, to learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Vivekcreator96

This is a film information page, otherwise suggest the edits Vivekcreator96 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "film information pages" here. We have articles about films that meet our definition of a notable film. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Ckeller1

Seeking advice on how to improve the neutral tone of this article. Seeking review of citations (which I think I improved before I resubmit.

Multiple editors have requested the article be written more neutrally, however I am unsure how to accomplish this. Ckeller1 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1237398088"