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 Tom Nym (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 26 December 2023 (→15:03, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Tom Nym). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


December 19

00:55, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Jmekis

I need help, and don't know how to get it.

Drmies, in his decline to publish comments said: "How many times will this be submitted without actual reliable secondary sources? A slide presentation and a website are not going to cut it." His comment page is locked, so I can't ask questions there.

If there were only those two references I would certainly agree with Drmies!

But there are also: two books on the topic in the XJDF "References" section (one published by Printing Industries of America), and also a 50 page XJDF whitepaper published by the German printing industries federation (bvdm). XJDF is also integrated into an ISO PDF standard (with inline reference). There are secondary references to address a "primary" complaint on membership info. When combined, I believe this qualifies as "notable".

There is a published German Wikipedia page of the same name at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_Job_Definition_Format. The German author of that page contributed to my English draft page and has proposed translating and incorporating what I have written into the German version. That page does not have as many independent references as mine. My experience so far says that if I simply translated that page to English, it would be declined here also.

A commercial printer can choose to build their own XJDF integration as did Stefan Meissner (author of one of the books) as CTO of one of Europe's largest commercial printers, or they can buy equipment with XJDF integration capabilities built in, or they can contact an integration service. Getting a Wiki page up will make it easier for english-speaking commercial printers to find these resources, which is my (volunteered) goal.

Questions:

  • What specifically would you want to changed?
  • Can I declare this article a Stub to make it easier for others users to find & enhance it?
Jmekis (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmekis: this draft cites seven sources, of which at least the first six are primary (it's not immediately clear what the seventh is, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability). There are also four sources listed under 'References', but they aren't actually referred to anywhere (as in, not cited), and three more under 'External links', but those aren't currently contributing towards the referencing requirements. If you wish them to do so, you need to cite them.
Whether or not an article on this subject exists in the German-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is completely separate with their own policies and requirements. The English-language one probably has the most onerous requirements, for many years now.
And no, you cannot "declare" this a stub, because at nearly 10k bytes it almost certainly isn't one, and in any case stubs are subject to the same standards for acceptance as bigger drafts.
I'll just finish by saying that you've had no fewer than five reviewers assess this, at seven (!) reviews, and you really don't have many more lives left, so you need to either produce sources that indisputably demonstrate notability beyond reasonable doubt, or expect this draft to be rejected at the next review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the only "actionable" reply I've received since I began creating this page. For example, I had no idea that independent references in the "references" section didn't count unless I cite them inline in the text.
I do have one more question on how you evaluate acceptable references, based on your count vs. what I see. Can you please clarify?
  • DoubleGrazing: "this draft cites seven sources, of which at least the first six are primary (it's not immediately clear what the seventh is, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability)".
When I look at them, I see #1 & #2 as intentionally primary, I agree. However, it seems to me that the next 4+ sources are solid, so I want to understand what you see in those:
.#3 is a secondary reference for #2 primary, and comes from Ghent Workgroup. These are the folks that created the PDF/X document imaging standards that are now ISO standards. (Selecting PDF/X options within Acrobat Distiller, or InDesign is often required by publications worldwide for advertising submissions and some content to insure it prints properly.) Ghent Workgroup refers people to CIP4 standards when it comes to specifying media/binding/etc. We are not related.
.#4 is ISO, confirming that CIP4 has a working "liaison" relationship with ISO for standards development, as stated in the text.
.#5 is an online prepress industry magazine citation that confirms how CIP4's creation history, initially by four industry heavy-weights, all trying to solve the same interoperability problems. There are other sources that can be used, but this one was both clear & brief.
.#6 is an ISO standard document's table-of-contents image that confirms CIP4's XJDF has a significant role in their PDF metadata standard, as stated in the text. (ISO standards are behind a paywall, so I can't just provide a direct link.)
.#7 Meissner's's book describes implementing parallel usage of XJDF combined with legacy JDF, as I described. (I did not specify a page-range within the reference. Would that make it a stronger reference?)
Resulting Question:
Shouldn't these sources then qualify as independent, and count towards notability, or is there some other element that I am missing? Jmekis (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmekis: all I was saying is that sources 3-6 are primary; they may or may not be independent, and may or may not be reliable, but either way they don't count towards notability. Just to pick one example, ref #4 is the ISO organisation stating that CIP4 cooperates with them. I'm sure that's true, I've no reason to doubt that. But this contributes nothing to the notability of CIP4, let alone of the Exchange Job Definition Format. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:45, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Owleyesinthelibrary

I've been working on this draft for some time. I think I've taken care of the notability and tone concerns. I still get questions about sources. There is one major source, a publication about the artist from Black Mountain College. Additionally, there is information on the college's museum website and from an international art dealer/museum director, both of which are cited. Are these sufficient?

I belief the reason for the paucity of sources in English is that the artist spent his career in France.

His work is in enough collections and his publications numerous enough that it would be good if there were a ready source of information about him, like Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help and looking forward to your suggestions on how to proceed. Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owleyesinthelibrary: you get questions about sources, because verifiability is a fundamental requirement for everything published on Wikipedia. Even if you're showing notability by some guideline other than WP:GNG, ie. where you don't need to produce sources that are independent and with significant coverage and all that, the sources still need to be reliable, and everything you say in the draft has to be supported by such sources. If you have made a statement that comes from, and is only backed up by, a non-reliable source, and you cannot find a better one, then you must remove that statement.
Note that sources do not need to be in English, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. requirements. They also don't need to be online, offline sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they again are of sufficient quality, and you cite them with comprehensive enough detail that they can be reliably identified for verification (see WP:OFFLINE). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
Thanks for the feedback. I think I have a grasp on what constitutes reliable sources in general. My question now is whether these specific sources for this entry are sufficient.
Thanks again for your help. Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:56, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Cesenapara

I accidentally submitted the draft for review as a "biography of a living person" instead of a "biography of a deceased person". Cesenapara (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cesenapara: no worries, makes no real difference to anything. Most of the time I (for one) don't even look at which category the draft is in. The draft contents and references are what matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:01, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Meio2934

hey, I notice the page for Benji Kroll did not had enough media coverage listed there. so i edited the page and added citation and links in reliable sources. could you review the page for it to be added into the main space ? Meio2934 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Meio2934: this draft has been rejected already, and will not be considered further; I have therefore reverted the submission. If you have new evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks for the consideration :) I rewrote the article and added 21 news covers as evidence could you take. Look ? Meio2934 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:16, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Chuksjonia

I have made my Author page on book i am writing and my post was rejected. Why? Is it because i am an African writer? Chuksjonia (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuksjonia: we don't have 'author pages', we publish encyclopaedia articles on topics which are notable, as evidenced by referencing. You have offered nothing to suggest that you are notable.
Moreover, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, even if you were notable, for all the reasons outlined in WP:AUTOBIO.
Promotion is also not allowed on Wikipedia, and that very much includes self-promotion.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:40, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Meanrimz

I've made some minor edits to read less like an advertisement, is this looking better? It should read more neutral now. Meanrimz (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Meanrimz: IMO this still reads like a corporate brochure. Is there anything encyclopaedically notable about this subject? If so, focus on that, and pretty much only that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Antonio Vinzaretti

What's wrong who can explain to me, thanks Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the reviewer, "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." 331dot (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but at least leave the comment will be good move, no? By the way, I changed how it looks and re-submitted, cause I feel unappreciatable tone by rejecting in a seconds after request review. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined, not rejected. Declined means you have the opportunity to improve it and submit it again (which you have done). Comments by reviewers are optional, as what you needed to know is in the grey box. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 19 December 2023 review of submission by SGC101009

I am trying to clean up the draft. I added in some text about her judicial career and have a news citation for it. I am unable to figure out how to make the citation correct and am confused, as the interface has changed. Do you have any help for me with this? SGC101009 (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SGC101009: I've corrected the citation for you. I don't think the template has changed, you may have just taken a wrong turn somewhere. Also, do not sign your edits anywhere other than talk pages and similar.
BTW, I would suggest that you think about notability very carefully, because while I was having a look around the draft I didn't see much evidence of that, and this has been declined for lack of notability already once, before the copyvio issue. Notability is probably your main challenge in getting this accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this feedback and help! I appreciate it! SGC101009 (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Achillzog

We don't know what to do with our submission... in fact it was not meant to be a draft but a final version! please help! Achillzog (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achillzog you need to have a separate username for each person per the username policy. Non-autoconfirmed editors are not allowed to created articles in the article space, so you have to create a draft. Once you become autoconfirmed, you can move it to mainspace, or you can submit it for Articles for Creation.
So far, the article needs to be wikified with citations, section headers, non-bare URLs, etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you picked up a violin for the very first time, and started playing, would you expect that to be not a practice but a recital? So why do you expect to be able to write a Wikipedia article at the very first attempt?
I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million existing articles (and in particular, learning about references and notability) before they even try to create a new article.
In any case, writing about your own book is even harder, because it is likely to be difficult for you to achieve the required neutral point of view. What you will need to do, once you have found the wholly independent reliable sources that discuss the book in depth, is to forget everything you know about the book, and write an article based only on what those independent sources say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Achillzog There is little there to suggest that the topic is notable, see WP:YFA, the layout is appalling see WP:MOS and the referencing is poor, see WP:REFB. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Merv Mat

I need help. Merv Mat (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help on specifically @Merv Mat. Have you read and understood the comments left by the reviewers, and the criteria at WP:NSONG? Qcne (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do get your article to be accepted? Merv Mat (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merv Mat, read and understand the comments left by the reviewers, and the criteria at WP:NSONG. Do you have any specific questions? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put in 5 refs for my draft and they still won't accept it Merv Mat (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merv Mat as the last declining reviewer said, there needs to be independent notability for the song as opposed to the album. Number of references does not matter, the quality does. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do that? Merv Mat (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merv Mat find quality references that prove notability under WP:NSONG. Qcne (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Merv Mat why did you re-submit it again? I have declined it. Your references give no indication of the song meeting WP:NSONG. Qcne (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:00, 19 December 2023 review of submission by 103.121.223.49

How to improve draft:Needy Foundation as a good article? 103.121.223.49 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:18, 19 December 2023 review of submission by DanSag1&24

How to cite if the primary source is the person im writing about DanSag1&24 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DanSag1&24: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the primary source is the person im writing about", but just to say that sources must be WP:PUBLISHED, not just oral accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 19 December 2023 review of submission by Percurrent

Hi, thank you for your attention. My draft article is supported by three in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent sources. No reviewer has specifically disagreed with this, it's been discussed on my talk page. Still, the submission has been twice declined for not meeting notability criteria, with no further explanation. First reviewer said "It's close to notability but not quite there" even though the rule is two quality sources, and the article now has three quality sources. Second reviewer has not explained anything yet. Is it normal on Wikipedia for declines to work this way? Percurrent (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Percurrent: have you asked the most recent reviewer what their concern with this was? Courtesy ping: Jamiebuba
And BTW, where does it say that "the rule is two quality sources"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>>Where does it say that "the rule is two quality sources"?
I was thinking of WP:ORG but you are correct, it actually says "multiple" rather than "at least two". Percurrent (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Percurrent: thank you. There is no hard and fast interpretation of "multiple" (that I'm aware of, at least), but it is usually thought to mean 3+. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 19 December 2023 review of submission by 2601:47:4086:180:A5C0:B8A9:575E:D36E

I was told this topic isn't notable enough for a wikipedia page. How is a published author not notable? 2601:47:4086:180:A5C0:B8A9:575E:D36E (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are any number of published authors who aren't notable. (Heck, I'm one!) It's not enough to be an author, they need to satisfy either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

03:15, 20 December 2023 review of submission by TMEcurator

Entire draft article was dismissed based on reviewer's opinion (" I am also of the opinion..."). If current draft is not satisfactory, I would like to work with a reviewer or editor in revising this standalone page for the Mandela Effect. It is right now only a subsection in another Wikipedia article but is deserving of a page of its own. TMEcurator (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the standalone article should first be expanded and then a discussion take place as to if a part of it should be spun off into a separate article, so that those that follow the existing article can weigh in- this process is not something that all editors of an article monitor so editors that follow the existing article can't give their views. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:20, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Entropico68

I have written a page on the "Coimbra derivative" to be linked to the main wikipedia page for "Fractional Calculus". The main page cites the "Coimbra derivative" without any explanation or link. Two editors have rejected the secondary page saying that it lacks context, but the page is to be linked to the topic (Fractional Calculus) in which the entire context is discussed. Should I repeat the context on fractional and variable order derivatives in this small page that is just meant to clarify the definition of one particular type (out of many) derivatives discussed in detail in the "Fractional Calculus" wikipedia page? Also, I can add hundreds of additional references to the list since the main paper that the Coimbra derivative was first derived has received hundreds of citations, but the references included show the variety of the problems used and includes secondary references as well. Any help here would be appreciated. For comparison, please see the short page for the Grunwald-Letnikov derivative at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnwald%E2%80%93Letnikov_derivative, which provides even less context than the one provided in the page I wrote and a grand total of 2 (two) references, but is successfully linked to the Fractional Calculus wikipedia page. Thanks! Entropico68 (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Serrwinner

I submitted the article a week ago but it was declined for grammar issues. The reviewer told me in their talk page it looked fine after making changes but they don't review the same article twice. Which I totally respect. However now it has been a week and I'm not sure whether it's going to be reviewed and it feels a bit confusing now because the article seems fine yet it hasn't been reviewed and is just being piled on due to the backlog. If anyone can kindly assist by reviewing I would highly appreciate. Serrwinner (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a queue for reviews: there is just a pile, which reviewers look through and choose which articles to look at. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:00, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Antonio Vinzaretti

Reviewer said that seems no significant changes since past AfD, which sounds like mocking of me cause I have no idea how it was looks like before. But one user helped me and found in internet-archive the previous content. Refernece: https://web.archive.org/web/20231028000951/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitget So after I saw that, reviewer's comment sounds like mocking of me. Compare it before rejecting my article, thx Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one was mocking you, they were just stating a fact. Do you have a question? You don't seem to be aware of the special rules around editing about crypto- I will notify you of these. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Phyominsanofficialaccount

Help me Phyominsanofficialaccount (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phyominsanofficialaccount: this draft, such as it is, has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Realdennis.hoang

I cannot create an account in Vietnamese Wikipedia cuz someone blocked my IP but I've never create an account before Realdennis.hoang (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Realdennis.hoang: this is the English-language Wikipedia, we have nothing to do with the Vietnamese version, which is an entirely different project. Any queries you have regarding the latter, you need to ask there.
With that in mind, do you have a question about your (non-English-language) draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no thanks 2402:800:63AC:BBD7:CCBA:FEB9:370B:FA2F (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Nabil vega

Hi I have just finished edits for this article and wondering if there are any changes that folks would suggest to make it stronger for publication. I think it should be able to pass the notability threshold( full articles in NYT, New Yorker, Paris Review) I am just wondering about formatting and language. Nabil vega (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Samh100

Hello,

I have submitted an article where I have listed the conflict of interest where I am an employee of the company. Can someone help with where to list it? The article is still listed with all facts and a neutral standpoint. 

Samh100 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI to Help Desk participants: answered on the user's Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:10, 20 December 2023 review of submission by DavidinVentura

Hello: I tried to include a photo for this posting but it was not accepted (even though I took the photo!). So I have another to try to submit but can't find the right button to do so. Can you please help? Thanks, David 

DavidinVentura (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, your submission has been declined and the reasons/suggestions are provided in the grey box within the template. Also, please note that you cannot use non-free images in drafts. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 20 December 2023 review of submission by 65.18.48.75

What sources should I use for my article? 65.18.48.75 (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I'm sorry to say that your submission was rejected and unfortunately, you won't be able to submit it again for review. Nevertheless, you do have the option to directly message the reviewer who rejected it. They might offer you more details and suggestions regarding your submission. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 20 December 2023 review of submission by DavidinVentura

Hello: I am trying to create a page for Ivor Davis, a man who I have employed during my publishing career. He is an accomplished journalist, having toured with the Beatles in 1964, covered the trial of the Manson 'Family' murders, witness and reported the Bobby Kennedy assassination in 1964, interviewed dozens of celebrities (ie Robert Redford, Rock Hudson, Doris Day, Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton, Malcolm McDowell to name a few) over four decades and written a number of books now in general circulation.

My posting on Wiki was rejected because there are not enough Sources linking to what other have said about him yet, there are several that I submitted and examples of him and his work throughout the internet. What can I do to help this move forward?

Davis is now 85 years old and I think deserves to have a posting on Wikipedia.

Thank you for any feedback that might help. David Comden DavidinVentura (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidinVentura, start by checking WP:JOURNALIST to see if your subject fits any of the guidelines there. If not, try the WP:GNG. If you find reliable sources that boost your subject's notability, add them and send it for review again. If not, we might not be able to help. Also, remember to disclose any conflicts of interest if you are connected to the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply DreamRimmer. I have added nine more links to interviews/article about Ivor Davis to my submission.
Davis is a well know expert on the Beatles, and the Manson murder trial and speaks about these events around the world up to the present.
There are only a handful of living journalists who have interviewed as many A list celebrities as he has done.
I am a retired publisher pursuing this by myself as I believe Davis to be of valuable note for these reasons.
thanks, David Comden DavidinVentura (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article is not a way to honor or memorialize someone- our interest is in summarizing independent sources. There are, in fact, good reasons to not want an article about one's self.(from Davis' point of view) 331dot (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Ivor Davis. Theroadislong (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 20 December 2023 review of submission by 65.18.48.75

How can I make the article bigger so it can be confirmed? 65.18.48.75 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this happens to be your first article, it might be helpful to read Help:Your first article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DreamRImmer 65.18.49.159 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:36, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Gaming gamer 9001

I understand, but what sources in particular were unreliable? For example, I used a variety of Bandcamp/YouTube URLs as sources, which are either directly made by Tally Hall or are recordings of Tally Hall concerts/work. Are these the problem, or other sources? Gaming gamer 9001 (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gaming gamer 9001. Those sources are precisely the problem: in order to prove notability under WP:NSONG the sources must be independent of Tally Hall. i.e., not connected in any way with them. Youtube and Bandcamp sources that are directly made or recordings of Tally Hall's work is the opposite of what we need. Qcne (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I see. I will do my best to fix that. Gaming gamer 9001 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Merv Mat

How do you make it a standalone article? Merv Mat (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merv Mat you cannot, as it has been rejected. Qcne (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:02, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Samh100

Hello!

I had just made corrections and I am trying to understand why this wasn't accepted. Can I have help?

Best, Sam Samh100 (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read what you have written? You clearly work in the marketing department. Draft is stuffed with ridiculous promotional trumpery “has been met with overwhelming success” “company is rapidly growing with a bright future and is committed to providing players with the best possible basketball training experience.” “has been consistently praised for its innovative technology” “quickly gained attention from the basketball community” “a revolutionary smart basketball hoop “ “exceptional sound system (40W speakers) adds an enhanced entertainment experience”. Theroadislong (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits. The issue is more that this piece can't have words like best exceptional and should just really be straight to the point. Is that accurate? Samh100 (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Samh100. I'm kinda frustrated that after all the examples I gave you on your Talk Page earlier you re-submitted with barely any improvement.
Maybe you need to get someone else to write this, as if you genuinely cannot see the problems this draft has you are perhaps too close to the product in order to see clearly. Qcne (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize as some of the edits I removed did not go out. Your edits were very helpful earlier. Samh100 (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give the benefit of the doubt you had issues publishing the edits. But please please please before submitting again go have a read of WP:NPOV. This is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia and your article will never be accepted unless you fully understand this policy. Qcne (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Samh100 Wikipedia does not care what those involved say or want to say about themselves/company/product so my best advise is to ignore all interviews (do not use them as sources) or use anything that is attributed to those involved (like "according to", so-and-so says, or press releases, etc.). Only summarize what is truly independently stated by reputable mainstream sources (not podcasts, YouTube or poor sources like Startup Boston). The draft should be about the product, not the company given its the only thing they do and the best sources are independent critical reviews by mainstream reputable publications (see WP:PRODUCTREV) which should contain pros and cons. S0091 (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am making changes now. Samh100 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Samh100 I also suggest reading WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. S0091 (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:11, 20 December 2023 review of submission by Chamosuhdod

Hello, Can you review this draft? I created it with reliable Arab sources. Some other officials also pointed out some things, and I added them. I also reformulated the article again and added everything to it. Can you review it? Thank you. I apologize for the inconvenience Chamosuhdod (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been almost five days but there is no response. Some things were mentioned in the article and I added them. I hope there is good news Chamosuhdod (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chamosuhdod as it states on the draft banner Review waiting, please be patient. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and you are relying on the kindness of volunteers to review drafts. It will get reviewed, this may take a number of weeks. Qcne (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting, but everyone tells me cannot review it because it contains sources in Arabic, knowing that there are several articles whose sources are all in Arabic, or they only have two sources and they were accepted. Chamosuhdod (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chamosuhdod: who are these "everyone" who tells you that? This draft has been reviewed four times already, in the last as many days, so I would say that it has received plenty of attention, despite its sources being in Arabic.
In any case, what's the hurry? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest. Yes, it has been reviewed four times, but it did not contain enough sources and was not written in a good way, so they asked me to add some sources. I also reformulated the article again and changed the sources. There are articles that contain most of their sources in Arabic, for example Cheb (musician) I have full confidence in your review and I am sorry for this inconvenience Chamosuhdod (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 21

00:11, 21 December 2023 review of submission by EAmengual

This is my first time trying to post and I'm a little confused. Indeed, UIBVFED is the dataset that we announced in the publication available in https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231266. I am the author of the work (together with my colleague Dr. Miquel Mascaro-Oliver, so I understand that we have the copyright. How can I prove that I am one of the authors of the article in which we make the dataset known to the research community? What should I do to be able to include a description of UIBVFED on Wikipedia? Thank you very much for your attention. Kind regards EAmengual (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proving your identity is not relevant. Please review conflict of interest as well as original research; Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your research. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:50, 21 December 2023 review of submission by PARAKANYAA

Recently I got a draft I did not start into a mainspace page (Battle Organization of Russian Nationalists). When I went to make a redirect for an alternate title for this group once it was moved to mainspace, I realized another person had independently made a draft after the first one was made (Draft:Combat Organization of Russian Nationalists), that while not finished does have substantial material that the one I submitted does not (i was kind of rushing to submit this because another article I was interested in was connected to it, my bad, I don't usually do that).

Both translations are used by English language press to refer to this group (from what I can tell the Combat translation is slightly more common, but so is simply the acronym "BORN", which the Battle translation allows, there are a few other common translations as well), so that's not the issue, but I'm stuck on what to do given there are two pages on the same topic now. What should I do here? The draft hasn't been edited for a while but I don't know if the creator of it intends to get back to it. What would be common/recommended practice in this situation? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: I don't think there's a problem here, the Battle draft was accepted and has already been patrolled, whereas the Combat draft was never even submitted for review. If it does get submitted, it will be declined on the basis that an article on this topic already exists (and I can also add a comment to it to that effect, in case the reviewer doesn't spot this due to the different titles). If there is information and/or sources in the unsubmitted draft which would benefit the existing article, you can selectively merge these into the latter, although make sure to adhere to the rules regarding attribution etc. per WP:CWW. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:03, 21 December 2023 review of submission by 159.83.248.42

I am unsure what needs to be changed or added to make this page accepted? Am I allowed to use her IMDb page for evidence? Does it have to be certain sources? 159.83.248.42 (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia, as explained at WP:IMDB. What is required are several references to reliable published sources that are entirely independent of Jabobowitz, that devote significant coverage to Jacobowitz. Your job is then to summarize what those referenced sources say about Jacobowitz. Certain sources? Well, they must be truly reliable, so that eliminates the vast majority of websites. Cullen328 (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:03, 21 December 2023 review of submission by Jasmine767

please help me to create this article completed , may be you will not get much enough but He is the notable poet and author , so please expand the article make it live Jasmine767 (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine767, let me be honest with you. A draft filled with overtly promotional language will never be accepted on Wikipedia. Examples from your draft include Ghazipuri's literary journey began in his early years, deeply influenced by the rich cultural tapestry surrounding him and Ghazipuri's poetic prowess echoes the authenticity of life itself and honing his craft while immersing himself in the world of words and each resonating with profound truths that touch the core of the human soul. And so on and so on. That material provides zero useful and factual information about this person, and the only purpose of those words is to lavish praise on him. That simply isn't allowed on Wikipedia, and the relevant policy is the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 21 December 2023 review of submission by Serrwinner

I came across this draft and looked up the guy and he is actually quite notable. The person who wrote the draft didn't site appropriate sources repeatedly hence why it got rejected. However after personally reviewing Mr. Habtoor through Google search he meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article. I think that the article shouldn't be rejected outright but instead reverted to declined so that future editors can add and make it better till it can get accepted. Serrwinner (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serrwinner: in light of the evidence we've seen so far (or rather not) I beg to differ, but you're of course free to try to prove otherwise. In the meantime, the draft is rejected, and won't therefore be considered further for now.
BTW, how did you "come across" this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through Wikipedia drafts I can help improve moving country by country. I started looking in Middle East countries and through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Draft-Class_United_Arab_Emirates_articles. Most articles there deserve being rejected/declined but this one was down to the guy making it not being aware about citing sources or having a COI. Can you also direct me where I can try to prove otherwise? Serrwinner (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serrwinner: if there are sources which weren't previously considered and which you believe demonstrate notability, you're welcome to add them and then make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. (Do not attempt to resubmit the draft, as it will almost certainly not be accepted, given the earlier rejection.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 21 December 2023 review of submission by Desmondkantwi

Hello, Please how do I write a references that will be acceptable Desmondkantwi (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desmondkantwi Before you do anything else, you must make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure, see WP:PAID. You shoukd also read conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about their own businesses; Wikipedia articles about businesses summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. The key there is "significant coverage", coverage which goes beyond merely documentation of the existence of the business and that goes into detail abiut what it sees as important/significant/influential about it, not what it sees as important about itself. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 21 December 2023 review of submission by BrandyStarr

Hi there, I have recently created a page for my father who was a well known musician from many years ago. I was denied, but I have added more resources and wanted to see what else I could do to help improve the chances of getting my page approved as an article. Thank you for your assistance. BrandyStarr (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Referencing for beginners so that you can write references other than bare URLs. Instead of sourcing the location of the newspaper archive, you should just reference the publication itself. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:35, 21 December 2023 review of submission by 2606:2E00:8028:C000:0:0:0:857B

Can you put the page on Wikipedia later. 2606:2E00:8028:C000:0:0:0:857B (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the draft was rejected. Qcne (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it reject it can you accept it some time in the future in is finished in 6 months. 2606:2E00:8028:C000:0:0:0:857B (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read the notices and feedback left on the draft page? Qcne (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:48, 21 December 2023 review of submission by Dallas2021

Hello! One of my drafts was rejected for SIGCOV and NPOV at once. I'd like more specific claims or just a second opinion (the reviewer spent less than 5 minutes for the large draft with dozens of sources). Dallas2021 (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dallas2021 sources 1 and 3 are not reliable which are used extensively: 1 is a commercial site offering products and services, and 3 is a blog. Source 2 is largely an interview though it does have some background information but it also a local news publication so leans weak for notability. Source 8 describes itself as a "the communication, advertising and press agency on the coast.", Creative Boom states "Catering to artists, designers, makers, illustrators, photograpers, filmmakers, and animators, we support creatives at every career stage, from education to employment, freelancing or team leadership." so not reliable sources nor is Vimeo. These are just the ones I looked at and did not look at all them because so many are poor. Also, the draft is WP:CITEBOMBed. Generally, only one source is needed to support a fact. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 21 December 2023 review of submission by NuclearDesignEngineer

Out of curiosity, why has it taken about a week to get back to my draft? I know there are a handful before one, however it appears the number of articles on review prior to mine has increased since I last checked, is this typical? NuclearDesignEngineer (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC

NuclearDesignEngineer, drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and vounteer reviewers select drafts based on their own areas of interest and knowledge. Plus, there are fewer editors active now because of the holidays. Your draft is not written in the style of an encyclopedia article. It reads like a list of bullet points instead of an article. I doubt the independence of your sources. Works by people creating and implementing a standard do not make a standard notable for inclusion in this encyclopedia. What is required are references to reliable sources completely independent of the creation and implementation of the standard, that devote significant coverage to the standard. Cullen328 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the follow up, I hope my latest changes help correct here issue(s). NuclearDesignEngineer (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 21 December 2023 review of submission by Belmontguy

I don't understand how my update applies to: Fails WP:ANYBIO - reliant entirely on primary sources which are not independent of the subject. Dan arndt I am new and trying my best to learn the ropes. Here is my latest revision using the 1925 biography and newspaper articles. Seems like reliable information? Belmontguy

John (Jack) Richard Harding, IV was born in Nashville, Tennessee June 2, 1896. His parents were John Richard Harding, III and Roberta Chase Harding.[1] John Harding, IV was known as John Harding, Jr.[2]

John paid his own way through the Webb Preparatory School, in Bell Buckle, Tennessee and Vanderbilt School of Engineering in Nashville.[3] His education was disrupted from college when he volunteered for the Army Air Service in World War I. He rose from private to Sargent when it was discovered he was a mechanical genius. He was trained as an Air Service Master Signal Electrician and Airplane Mechanician working at the Dayton, Ohio air facility[4]. A pilot discovered his abilities, and recruited him as a back-seat mechanic, which eventually led to his commission as a 2nd Lieutenant Army pilot.[5]

Lt. John Harding was one of four Army Air Service officers that completed the first aerial circumnavigation world flight in 1924.[6] Lt. Harding was the co-pilot of the Douglas World Cruiser: New Orleans[7]. He and the other aviators were all awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, the French Legion of Honor[8] and the Japanese Order of the Sacred Treasure for the first circumnavigation of the earth by air.[9]

In 1925 John married Blondena H. Carstens of Davenport, Iowa.[10]

Lt. Harding and The First World Flight author Lowell Thomas, subsequently proceeded on an international lecture tour about the world flight. The lecture series lasted two years.[11]

John Harding went on to work as a service manager for Boeing Aircraft Company, for Pump Engineering Service Corporation[12], and founded Harding Devices Company in Dallas, Texas which manufactured aircraft components.[13]

John Richard Harding, IV died at the age of 71 in La Jolla, California.[14] 

Belmontguy (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Belmontguy Most of the source you cite here are not used in the draft and at least some of the ones here are written by Harding so are primary sources (read that) and also not independent, which is the case for anything he wrote or said. Likewise first hand accounts written by others are primary sources. Looking at the two sources used in the draft, both say Harding is the author and is likely what Dan arndt rightly assumed. However, I think that is just a mistake on your part as neither source was actually written by Harding but even so The Contributor is essentially a blog with no professional editorial staff so not a reliable source. The Nashville Banner, though, indicates possible notability but in-depth coverage by multiple secondary independent sources are needed and you also need at least one outside of the Nashville area. I suggest trying Google Books. S0091 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Belmontguy I also suggest posting a note at WT:WikiProject Military history to get some assistance. Harding might be able to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria but writing an article is can be quite difficult for a new editor. It may take a couple weeks or so for someone to respond given we are upon the holidays but they are the experts. S0091 (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the suggestion! Belmontguy (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
S0091 Thank you! I do have a variety of newspaper articles from all over the world. Thanks for clarifying everything. Belmontguy (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Harding, John (1925). The First World Flight (1st ed.). Boston: Boston Houghton Mifflin. p. 43. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  2. ^ Harding, John (20 December 2023). "The Tales of Smiling Jack Harding". The Contributor. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  3. ^ Harding, John (1925). The First World Flight (1st ed.). Boston: Boston Houghton Mifflin. p. 44. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  4. ^ Harding, John (1925). The First World Flight (1st ed.). Boston: Boston Houghton Mifflin. p. 45. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  5. ^ Harding, John (1925). The First World Flight (1st ed.). Boston: Boston Houghton Mifflin. p. 45. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  6. ^ Harding, John (18 August 1924). "Lieut. John Harding Here For The Holidays". The Nashville Banner. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  7. ^ Harding, John (1925). The First World Flight (1st ed.). Boston: Boston Houghton Mifflin. p. 46. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  8. ^ Harding, John (1925). The First World Flight (1st ed.). Boston: Boston Houghton Mifflin. p. 325. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  9. ^ Harding, John (12 November 1926). "Lieut. Harding, World Flier, Honored by Japs". The Tennessean. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  10. ^ Harding, John (20 December 2023). "The Tales of Smiling Jack Harding". The Contributor. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  11. ^ Harding, John (8 June 1925). "World Flier Here For Short Visit". The Nashville Banner. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  12. ^ Harding, John (14 May 1937). "Many Nashville Business Heads Converge". The Nashville Banner. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  13. ^ Harding, John (29 September 1943). "Nashville Recalls First World Flight". The Tennessean. Retrieved 21 December 2023.
  14. ^ Harding, John (27 May 1968). "Globe-Girdling Pilot Dies". The Register. Retrieved 21 December 2023.

20:31, 21 December 2023 review of submission by Thomas Dutchman

Need guidance on uploading images to article I created. I have permission from JCPenney Collection. DeGolyer Library, Southern Methodist University to use materials they have provided me specifically for use in creating a Wikipedia article. The images may be used with proper attribution. I have reviewed the Wikipedia instructions, but do not know how to answer questions regarding copywrite protection when uploading the images. Please advise. Thank you. Thomas Dutchman (talk) 20:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking questions related to the draft submission process, you are asking about an article you already created; the best forum for that is the more general Help desk. 331dot (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:07, 21 December 2023 review of submission by Weatherforyou

"Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer."

What does create articles yourself means? Does that mean I can publish articles without submitting it through Article Wizard for review? Weatherforyou (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It means what it says, yes. But don't submit that biography: "Widely recognized for his expertise" is purely promotional writing, and I don't see a single reliable secondary source that actually discusses the person. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 21 December 2023 review of submission by IvanRamonTrillos

Quiero que creen está pagina porque es de una persona viva y es un YouTuber IvanRamonTrillos (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about notability, which is a fundamental, non-negotiable requirement for a Wikipedia article.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 22

00:59, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Neelesh Pandiyath

Respected Sir, Please refer the comment recived after declining the submission, Comment: Since the last time this draft was submitted for review, and declined because its references did not demonstrate notability, there has been just one reference added, and that one is published by an organisation of which Rabinarayan Acharya is the director. The fact that an organisation publishes information about its own director is no evidence of notability. JBW (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2023

Sir, Respected Sir, In your comment it has mentioned that that Rabinarayan Acharya is a director. He is not a Director. He is DIRECTOR GENERAL or DG in the Public Sector/Government sector. He is not a business man. And the publication is a Government of India Publication as CCRAS is an autonomous body of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Ayush Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. Apart from that, 6-7 reliable sources are also added which clearly justify that he is DIRECTOR GENERAL of CCRAS. Moreover a Director General is next to Cabinet Minister of Ministry of AYUSH, Government of India. It is also noticed that the article of Secretary of Ministry of AYUSH is in the main space of Wikipedia (Rajesh Kotecha ) . If so how could the Director General( Director general) become irrelevant for a Wikipedia article. Sir, Request for consideration please Neelesh Pandiyath. 

Neelesh Pandiyath (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody doubts that he is Director General of CCRAS. Your draft does not need to justify or prove that.
But Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
The draft needs to be a summary of reliable published materials wholly unconnected with Acharya, or CCRAS.
There should be no more than one or two citations to primary sources, restricted to verifying uncontroversial factual information about Acharya. The bulk of the article must be based solely on independent sources.
Perhaps there are enough independent sources in the draft to establish notability; but citation overkill is enough to discourage any reviewer from looking at the draft.
I urge you to look critically at every source in your list. Remove every one that is written, published, or commissioned by Acharya or CCRAS, or based on a press release or interview from them. Remove every one that has less than a couple of paragraphs about Acharya personally (material about CCRAS will not contribute to an article about Acharya, though it might to an article about CCRAS). Remove any reference that duplicates information already in another reference.
Then go through your draft and remove any information that does not now have a source. (Also remove the external link from the text - they are not allowed).
If what you have left is a reasonable article about Acharya, then resubmit it. If not, then you either need to find some sources, or to accept that he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability and give up. ColinFine (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:16, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Nicolacarswell

Where is the edit button so i can edit my draft (I can only see the 'edit source' button? Nicolacarswell (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds as if you have disabled the visual editor. You should be able to reenable it in your preferences; or you can pick "edit source", and then you should see a pencil icon which will allow you to select "visual editor". ColinFine (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:25, 22 December 2023 review of submission by SMsrishtisingh

Please advice on how to make this page live. SMsrishtisingh (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be, it was blatant promotion and has now been deleted. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Jay.Jarosz

Curios to learn why the draft isn't considered to be supported by reliable sources.

I'm new to this side of Wikipedia and read through the tutorial links and no issues stood out to me.

The citations used come from well-known and established brands such as GQ India, IGN India, mint, INK Talks, etc.

Zain is well-known in the board game community in India and the game he's created has received enough notoriety to have its own article (Shasn)

--Jay.Jarosz (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference 1: not independent (probably by him or his team).
  • 2,3, 5, 6: not independent (quoting him directly)
  • 4: passing mention
  • 7,8: don't even mention him
9 is behind a paywall, so I didn't look.
Find several sources that satisfy the golden rule, and you will both have established that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and have the material to write an article from. If you can't find them, then give up. ColinFine (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ColinFine. I'm still a bit confused about a couple things.
1. INK is independent from Zain and his studio. They invite prominent entrepreneurs in India to give talks. So him being one of the speakers means they would have vetted him. They don't let just anyone go on INK.
2,3,5,6. So if a quote is used from the subject it makes it not independent? For 2 for example, GQ India sent their people to Zain's studio. It has quotes from Zain but it also their own observations and reporting. And they wouldn't have sent people in-person in the first place if it wasn't a notable person no?
4. Yeah this was just confirming he was part of ElseVR.
7,8, 9. Yes these are just citations for awards of the game he created. Odd that 9 is behind a password now, it was public just a couple days ago. Maybe they are doing some maintenance. They don't sell any article subscriptions. Jay.Jarosz (talk) 02:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, Jay.Jarosz. You're not understanding the special way we use "notable" in Wikipedia (I often think that it is an unfortunate choice of word, because it misleads so many people). It doesn't mean famous, or important, or popular, or influential, or any of the usual meanings of the word. It basically means "enough has been published on the subject to base an article on", bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
So whether INK regards him as prominent is completely irrelevant: the point is that the citation you gave to INK is almost certainly his own words, and therefore cannot contribute to notability in the Wikipedia sense.
You're right that an article based on an interview can contain material of value for notability; but only where it is clear that the writer is writing about the subject from their own research, not simply repeating what has been told to them by the subject or the subject's associates. Kappal doesn't say much about Memon (the subject of the article).
What you need (in fact, what you needed before you ever wrote a word of this draft) is places where people unconnected with Memon or have written at some length about Memon with no input from him or his associates. If you can't find any, then he currently does not meet the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Adrian Mare Romania

Hello,

I am trying to also add a photo of the writer to the article and I'm getting a message that the image doesn't respect Wiki's rules.

Long story short, the writer presented in the article is my mother's aunt (so I have any copyrights required for it), but the text in the article is a biography composed of multiple biographies other writers wrote about her ( therefore not a personal opinion ). I'm just handling the logistics part of getting the writer's biography published.

Please let me know what can be done about the images and if you have any other recommendations about the article at a first glance.

Thank you. Adrian Mare Romania (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is not in English. If you intend to translate it, you should do that and get it accepted before worrying about images. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the image, it would help to know what the message was; if you took the image yourself with the camera in your hand, you may upload it to Commons. 331dot (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the requirements of the Romanian Wikipedia (each version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with separate rules). But I can tell you that your draft, even if translated into English, would be completely unacceptable to English Wikipedia. An article in en-wiki is a neutrally written summary of what reliable, independent sources say about the subject, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Tom Nym

I am working of updating wikipedia with information about Rutherford County Tennessee. It occurred to me that the fastest growing county in Tennessee had a very limited information regarding who is in local government and how government works in Tennessee. According to information from Rutherford county ,over 22k people have relocated to the county in the last two years. I have never attempted anything like this before. I am retired and have some time on my hand now. I chose Rob Mitchell because of all of the elected officials, other than the mayor or the sheriff, he has the most published information. He was even considering a run for Tennessee governor in 2018 but declined to run.( probably because of money). My goal is to create an informative list for public use. Any help on this project is greatly appreciated. Tom Nym (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tom Nym. Unfortunately we have fairly strict guidelines for the inclusion of politicians, which you can find here WP:NPOLITICIAN. In essence, politicians are presumed notable if they hold legislative or national/state roles or there is significant coverage of the person in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Rob Mitchell doesn't meet the first criteria, and you haven't shown he meets the second criteria yet because your three sources are, in order, 1), 2) not independent of Rob 3) not significant coverage of Rob.
Hope that helps. Please don't be discouraged though! It is often a lot simpler to edit existing articles as there is a smaller barrier of entry. You may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennessee? Qcne (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for any help. I saw on Wikipedia that he was a potential candidate for governor in Tennessee back in 2018. Thats why I figured he might be easier to add since Wikipedia already a mention for him. He has been in the news in Tennessee as of late because he is pushing for legislation to remove the property tax for seniors in Tennessee.( of course that has made some folks mad at him) There seems to be quite a bit out there on him in more than just Rutherford County. He was even interviewed in the Washington Post. Anyway, I may abandon this project completely I thought I was starting this with someone easy. LOL
Here are some articles I found that I didn't include. Mostly because I am unsure how to do it very well: https://www.wgnsradio.com/article/82187/rob-mitchell-announces-nearly-500k-returned-to-rutherford-general-fund
https://www.wkrn.com/news/local-news/murfreesboro/property-tax-seniors-rutherford-county-murfeesboro/
https://www.dnj.com/story/news/2023/01/31/official-opposes-property-tax-exemptions-for-gender-affirming-care/69856523007/
https://www.murfreesborovoice.com/article/4064/bill-lee-swears-in-rutherford-property-assessor-rob-mitchell-to-new-term-after-re-election
https://news.yahoo.com/rutherford-county-assessor-shares-plans-222344932.html
https://rutherfordtnhistory.org/406-north-academy-homeowners-and-tax-abatement-program-recipients-finish-home-renovations/
https://www.bestplaces.net/news/alex-and-rob-talk-rutherford-county-tennessee
https://boropulse.com/2023/02/chess-can-help-with-planning-strategy-critical-thinking-focus-proponents-say-supporters-of-the-game-invited-to-feb-22-chess-lunch/
https://www.mtsu.edu/art/Community-Links.php
https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/how-a-billion-dollar-housing-bet-upended-a-tennessee-neighborhood/
https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/tennessee-distilleries-fighting-possible-whiskey-barrel-tax/51-525070811
https://mtsunews.com/murfree-gallery-opens-2013/
https://fox17.com/news/ferrier-files/ferrier-files-rutherford-county-to-surpass-hamilton-county-as-4th-largest-in-tennessee
https://www.advantax.com/video-gallery/
https://www.wgnsradio.com/article/37964/rutherford-county-property-assessor-rob-mitchell-not-running-for-governor Tom Nym (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which three of those are, in your opinion, the best candidates for reliably published articles, written and published wholly independently of Mitchell and his associates, and containing significant coverage of Mitchell personally? ColinFine (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, It wasn't Mayor, it was Tennessee Governor that he was being considered as a candidate for Governor: https://mainstreetmediatn.com/articles/murfreesboropost/rob-mitchell-considers-run-for-governor/ Tom Nym (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for any help. I saw on Wikipedia that he was a potential candidate for governor in Tennessee back in 2018. Thats why I figured he might be easier to add since Wikipedia already a mention for him. He has been in the news in Tennessee as of late because he is pushing for legislation to remove the property tax for seniors in Tennessee.( of course that has made some folks mad at him) Tom Nym (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the ICIJ/Washington Post article might be one. There is an article I didn't list because Wikipedia already has it regarding; the 2018 candidates for Governor of Tennessee. the Murfreesboro Pulse article regarding the critical thinking and chess program is compelling. It isn't anything political but seems interesting. The being sworn into office seems unusual. I don't think that is something a Governor usually does, is it? I am really struggling here Colin. I appreciate you taking time to help with this. Tom Nym (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Trouver

I would appreciate feedback on the above article (living biography of composer & musicologist) which has been waiting for approval for over 10 days.Trouver (talk) Trouver (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trouver please be patient. Articles are reviewed by volunteers in no particular order. It is not uncommon for there to be months in-between submission and review. Qcne (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But while you're waiting, I suggest that you look through your list of references: I notice that 9 out of 24 are by Green: it's fair enough to list a selection of his works in a bibliography, but in order to justify mentioning them in the text, you really ought to be citing independent sources about them (eg reviews, or biographical articles about him that talk about them). ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 22 December 2023 review of submission by Sdfrink

This page I submitted for review was declined with the note "This page already exists at 'C19orf18'". These are different and no page for C19Orf81 exists. Sdfrink (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sdfrink. It looks like there is an existing page on this protein at C19orf18? Qcne (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne. Yes, there is. However this is not C19orf18. This is C19orf81. Sdfrink (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like both myself and @QuantumRealm misread it! I have re-submitted it for you and added a note. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you for your help. Sdfrink (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 22 December 2023 review of submission by 185.127.183.133

Please help me submit my first contribution. Thank you. 185.127.183.133 (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed the information and comments left by reviewers? What specific help are you seeking? 331dot (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 22 December 2023 review of submission by IVickyChoudhary

Regarding the improvement and approval. As the subject qualifies to be on the Wiki main space. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. Qcne (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you review it ? So I can make further improvments if needed. iVickyChoudhary (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@IVickyChoudhary: you can make improvements while it is awaiting review. In any case, we don't review drafts on demand here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks <3 iVickyChoudhary (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Motspur Park Community Football Club

Hi. Seeking advice regarding the decline of this article.

One request was to remove Wikipedia citations. This makes sense and is sensible so I have done so.

The other request was to remove inline external links - I wasn’t sure what this meant and I could not find advice elsewhere. Please can someone advise?

Hopefully my latest round of edits have improved the article!

Thanks! Trembele (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Trembele. The in-line external links means you shouldn't have links to external (non-Wikipedia) websites within the body of the text. External links should only be present in the External links section - guidance on this here: WP:EXTERNAL.
I can't see any external links in the body, though, so I am pinging in @Tagishsimon for clarification. Qcne (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @Qcne! Trembele (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While you're waiting for review, I suggest you read WP:REFB, and turn your bare URLs into properly formatted citations. A long list of bare URLs makes a draft unattractive to reviewers, because normal bibliographic information (title, publisher, date, author) makes it much quicker to evaluate the probably reliability of a source. And don't bother reformatting inherently unreliable sources like instagram: just remove them. ColinFine (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 22 December 2023 review of submission by 78.56.232.129

I would like to get some assistance for my wikipedia page to get uploaded. My page is dedicated to a important figure: Matteo Mucciacia and i don’t understand the reason it’s not getting posted. 78.56.232.129 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very happy to get some assistance on my wikipedia page to get uploaded. I was very disappointed that it got declined because I’m a very big fan of Matteo Mucciacia. I would be very grateful if my page would get uploaded. 78.56.232.129 (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft wasn't declined, it was rejected outright, because there's not the slightest hint of evidence that the subject is notable, which is also why I've just rejected that this draft be speedily deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to get some assistance for my wikipedia page to get uploaded. My page is dedicated to a important figure: Matteo Mucciacia and i don’t understand the reason it’s not getting posted. 78.56.232.129 (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social media website and your draft is very obviously nonsense. Do not create drafts like this in future. Qcne (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:54, 22 December 2023 review of submission by 97.64.79.175

Question, the reviewer left a comment  Please remove all inline external links from body text; convert to citations where relevant. Is this referring to embedded links in the articles?

Last question, This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. We cited articles where the organization was mentioned. Should we cite more of those articles and could we cite testimonials from individuals not directly involved in the organization?

Thank you 97.64.79.175 (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that either Civic Caucus or Draft:Civic Caucus has ever existed, or any previous contributions from this IP. Please clarify the page you are asking about. ColinFine (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

06:25, 23 December 2023 review of submission by Tangmo

would like to know ther reason of decrine to modify the article. Tangmo (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tangmo I fixed your link to the draft(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). The reviewer provided their reason for declining at the top of the draft. Please review the message and the policies linked to therein carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 23 December 2023 review of submission by Ba.hridoy

How do I add a picture or monogram in this topic Ba.hridoy (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until your draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. You'll need to first translate it into English and show you have summarized independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this magazine. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 23 December 2023 review of submission by Samuel Tesfaye Gari

What should I have to change? Samuel Tesfaye Gari (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong now? Samuel Tesfaye Gari (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong is that your draft was blatant promotion and has been deleted. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 23 December 2023 review of submission by Jayofpedia

NEW ON WIKIPEDIA Hello, I am Jassen Japheth Gaddiun. I am new to wikipedia and was frustrated when my article was rejected. I am new on wikipedia and will really need help. Please Thank you. Jayofpedia (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayofpedia I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Most of your draft is unsourced. The awards section should just be removed as awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely appreciate. Let me remove the award section. Jayofpedia (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the post and published it. Awaiting review. Jayofpedia (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 23 December 2023 review of submission by Laisha.Fahud

Hi, is it okay to use PDF files for citations? I haven't come across other articles that do that. I'd appreciate any help. Thank you Laisha.Fahud (talk) 10:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Laisha.Fahud: if a source otherwise meets the required standards of reliability etc., and has been published in the PDF file format, then that is okay. However, user-generated content is not acceptable, nor are copyrighted contents that someone has scanned and saved as PDF possibly in violation of the original copyright. So I think the answer it, 'it depends'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a citation properly consists of bibliographic information such as author, title, date, publisher, journal etc. If there is a legal copy available on the web, then it is helpful to provide a link to it, but that is a convenience, not an essential part of the citation. ColinFine (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 23 December 2023 review of submission by Ashok2025

I want to publish this page because he is an actor. Ashok2025 (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok2025 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. IMDB is not considered an acceptable source as it is user-editable, and you have not otherwise demonstrated that this actor meets our definition of a notable actor. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 23 December 2023 review of submission by Thesazh

Dear Qcne,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek advice regarding the draft article for Siddam Manohar. The draft has recently been flagged for deletion under section G11, citing concerns of being unambiguous advertising.

I highly value the guidelines and standards set by Wikipedia and would appreciate guidance on how to modify the draft to ensure it aligns with the encyclopedic tone expected by the community.

Points of Inquiry:

Clarification on Advertising Concerns: I would appreciate specific feedback on the elements within the draft that may be perceived as promotional or advertising. Understanding these concerns will enable me to make targeted revisions.

Notability Criteria: Siddam Manohar is a significant figure in the Indian film industry, and the draft highlights his notable contributions. If there are specific aspects that need additional coverage or clarification to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, kindly advise on those points.

Improvement Suggestions: Are there particular sections or information within the draft that could benefit from improvement or modification to better adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines? Any specific advice on language, tone, or content structure would be immensely helpful.

I am committed to contributing content that enhances Wikipedia's quality and educational value. Your guidance is invaluable in this regard, and I am eager to make the necessary adjustments to meet the community's expectations.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Thesazh (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thesazh If you wish to address Qcne in particular, you should use their user talk page.
Please describe your connection to Mr. Manohar; you took a picture of him on set.
With language like "Manohar has left an enduring impact on the cinematic landscape, showcasing his artistic prowess in a diverse range of films", the draft was nothing but a promotional piece, and has been deleted as such. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manohar has left an enduring impact on the cinematic landscape, showcasing his artistic prowess in a diverse range of films, and now I got text that page was deleted due to reasons, I'm just trying to create a page to showcase his works and skills Thesazh (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thesazh This does not answer my question. Please describe your connection with him.
Wikipedia does not have "pages to showcase" anything. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet the notability criteria, like a notable creative professional, in which independent reliable sources with significant coverage are summarized. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 331dot,
I apologize for any confusion earlier. As Chidipothu Manohar's assistant, my goal is to ensure that an accurate and neutral Wikipedia page is created reflecting his notable contributions to the Indian film industry. My association with Mr. Manohar is based on assisting him in gathering relevant and factual information to compile a comprehensive summary of his career achievements and impact within the cinematic landscape.
Our intent is to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines by compiling information from credible and independent sources, highlighting Mr. Manohar's notable works and achievements within the industry. The aim is to meet the notability criteria by showcasing his significant contributions supported by verifiable sources.
Should you require further clarification or specific details regarding Mr. Manohar's professional background, notable projects, or any other relevant information, please let me know. We aim to contribute to Wikipedia in adherence to its standards and guidelines.
Sincerely,
Thesazh,
Assistant to Chidipothu Manohar Thesazh (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Terms of Use require you to disclose your status as his assistant, which I assume he compensates you for. I've placed information about doing this on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesazh your responses are clearly AI-generated. Qcne (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:24, 23 December 2023 review of submission by 62.101.252.149

Unfortunately, my article has been declined. I would like to know the reason for that. Farida Ahmadi is a Norwegian Afgan writer. She has a Norwegian Wikipedia article. I want to convert it into English and publish it in wikipedia.org and I am a new editor. I don't have any article. So Wikipedia did not allow me to translate the Norsk article into English and I have decided to create a new article in English and publish it in wikipedia.org. Please give me a guideline and help me to publish this article on Wikipedia.org. I am doing this from my interest. There are no financial issues here. 62.101.252.149 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian Wikipedia has different editors and policies, what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to demonstrate that Ahmadi meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, by presenting several sources, each of which is all three of reliably published, wholly independent of Ahmadi, and contains significant coverage about her. Most of your sources are not independent, as they are either by Ahmadi, or based on interviews.
Reference 4 appears to be from a Wiki, and is therefore not a reliable source, but in any case it does not mention her. (I often wonder why people think there is any point at all in including a reference like this: a reference that showed that she attended the school would be of (limited) use, but a reference that shows that the school exists contributes absolutely nothing to the article).
It is possible that the Ramakrishnan book has significant coverage of her and will count, but I haven't seen the book - but even if it is, we need more than one such source. See golden rule for more information.
Note that each version of Wikipedia has its own rules and policies: sources may be acceptable on one version and not another. ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you User:Sharmina.lina? Please remember to log in. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a large amount of unsourced/original research content which is not allowed. Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 23 December 2023 review of submission by 2600:100B:B1C0:F9A5:FDDE:7890:5036:4998

Hi,

Before I totally abandon trying to enter this entry with Wikipedia, I thought I would ask for some guidance. The subject I have submitted an entry for would seem to be, "notable," since they have a podcast that is successfully charting, and the film productions they have taken part in have charted and been fairly successful, as well. I have cited one or two articles that directly address the subject, as well as two separate sources where a news station includes the subject in their reporting. If these sources aren't strong enough for acceptance, I will make a note for any future edits or entries I may try to enter. A google search will quickly show that this entry I have submitted has a footprint on pop culture, but if they don't meet the notability criteria, I need to get clear on who actually does?Thanks very kindly for your assistance. 2600:100B:B1C0:F9A5:FDDE:7890:5036:4998 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having a "podcast that is successfully charting", "footprint on pop culture", etc. are not notability criteria. This was declined because the subject does not appear to meet any of our notability guidelines, neither the general WP:GNG nor the special WP:NAUTHOR one. If you can prove otherwise, then feel free to provide the necessary evidence and resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 24

03:24, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Monique Reymond

how is this not notable? secondary sources - awards. Monique Reymond (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Monique Reymond: you need to either demonstrate that the subject is notable per the general WP:GNG guideline, or provide evidence that the special WP:CREATIVE one is met. Just arguing that you feel like you should be notable isn't what we're looking for, nor is claiming sex or gender discrimination etc. without any real evidence.
Please also read and understand WP:AUTOBIO, for all the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read entries of not notable people - meaning people whom have not been written about in any format by a 2nd or third party. These people are not removed and they are clearly self published. I wish you a happy holiday, but this source - wikipedia isn't what I thought it was. A reliable source. I'll stick to professional journalists in the future. Monique Reymond (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 24 December 2023 review of submission by ZYX001

The reviewer rejected and its reason would be "Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified". However, I cannot take any actions if I am not notified which sources seem not reliable. And also, the reason why these sources are thought as not reliable. It has to be not fair such a way to reject without any clues to revise the draft. I was a reviewer of many scientific articles manuscript in some international journals, and I was really so surprised at this manner. For scientific field, such a response from reviewer is never acceptable. ZYX001 (talk) 08:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZYX001: I think you're being a little bit disingenuous. At the time when this draft was declined, its 'References' section consisted of this: "ameblo.jp dailymotion.com Additional sources include the V League Official Website and sports blogs." This is not referencing. This is listing two domain names, and suggesting that some sources may exist somewhere. The draft was absolutely correctly declined. The onus is on you as the draft author to figure out what the referencing requirements are, and how referencing works, on Wikipedia, rather than coming here complaining about the reviewer. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing in general, and WP:BLP for information on editing articles on living people, including the referencing requirements applicable to such articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that "disingenuous" would be against the rule of Wikipedia in the communication.
The refernce 1 is an article in a journal published by "Undo Tsushin, Co. Ltd" whose majour stock holders are The Asahi Shimbun (Japan biggest news paper company) and Dentsu (Japan biggest advertising company) and others, so I cannot bileve that the description in the reference is not reliable.
The reference 2 is the official site of "GSS Tokyo Sunbeams" that blongs to V.League (Japan). There is no professional volley ball league in Japan and "V league" is the the leargest and highest rank volleyball league in Japan. I don't understand why this reference is concluded as not reliable one.
The reference 3 is the offical site of "V league".
The reference 4 is the article of Nikkan sports online. "Nikkan Sports" was first published on March 6, 1946, and is the oldest existing Japanese sports newspaper.
I am just asking which one is not reliable, and I am guessing that the reviewer has a responsibilty to answer me which one. I am not sure that such a subjective communication is standard or not in Wikipedia. ZYX001 (talk) 10:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZYX001: you're missing the point. The draft was declined based on the state of the referencing as it was when this was reviewed. You're now asking about the referencing (refs 1–4) as it currently stands. The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, at which time you will get feedback on the current state of referencing. We do not provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk (which, in fairness, you haven't explicitly asked for, although have sort of implied). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, there might be some misunderstanding. The draft was declined twice. The first decline was completely my fault. So, I corrected the draft and resubmitted. Then, it was declined again because the references were not reliable. So, I am asking which references were not reliable.
The above is my understanding and please tell me what was my reply was "disingenuous".
I will wait for the answer for my question in this board. ZYX001 (talk) 11:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I get the answer for my question about the 2nd draft declined in the future? Please confirm it. ZYX001 (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZYX001: the revision history of Draft:Zhang Xinmuyi shows that it was declined once, timestamp 17:33 22 December 2023, with the reason This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.. When was the other decline, according to you?
I don't understand what "the 2nd draft declined in the future" means. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined 2 times. If it is not correct, why did you say "At the time when this draft was declined, its 'References' section consisted of this: "ameblo.jp dailymotion.com Additional sources include the V League Official Website and sports blogs. This is not referencing. This is listing two domain names, and suggesting that some sources may exist somewhere."? I resubmitted the 2nd draft with references, and it was declined at the 2nd review.
I am now asking about references because of the message from reviewer after the 2nd decline, and there is a obviouly a contradiction about your reply. ZYX001 (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZYX001: okay, I give up. Hopefully someone else will come along shortly who is able to assist you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Hopefully" mean that Wilkipedia declined the draft and the author revise and resubmit the draft, then Wilkipedia sometime finally ignore the revised draft? ZYX001 (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ZYX001: "hopefully" means, I clearly can't help you, or possibly you can't or don't want to understand what I'm saying, or perhaps both, and given that case it's clearly better to wait for someone else to come and give it a try, in the hope they can do what I can't.
"Wikipedia" did not decline the draft. We are all volunteers here; one reviewer declined the draft, and either the same or a different reviewer will review it the next time. We do not "ignore" drafts, they get reviewed eventually, although this may take days, weeks or sometimes longer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. ZYX001 (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and sorry for my misunderstainding. ZYX001 (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, can I wait for the reviewer's explanation here about how I can do for the 2nd draft? ZYX001 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Crunchydillpickle. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Sujeet5775

This article is about a well known producer and director of indian film industries ,his name is also mentioned in wikipedia page created on the movies he directed or produced (please check the movie likns in the draft.I think decision to reject this draft was taken without going into the details of the draft or the article. Sujeet5775 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujeet5775: this draft was declined, not rejected. And the reason for that is that the sources do not establish the subject's notability, which they don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks,I will try to add more sources to it ! Sujeet5775 (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add better sources, rather than just more, but okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Phyominsanofficialaccount

Please rework this fix.Please verify this page. Phyominsanofficialaccount (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phyominsanofficialaccount: I don't know what you're asking for, exactly, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 24 December 2023 review of submission by AccountManager1

I accidentally submitted a 3rd revised draft for approval, please see only my 2nd draft revision that was completed, I updated Lyon's press coverage as you requested AccountManager1 (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page; if you are employed by Mr. Daniels, you must disclose that, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Victor MacTavish

Hello, I have a question, the only reference I have is a picture like a CV form picture how can I place it as a reference? Victor MacTavish (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your only reference, this person does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Wikipedia is not a place to merely document someone's accomplishments or career; Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 24 December 2023 review of submission by SamuelCulper

I'd like some clarification on why my page wasn't approved, just so I know how to rectify it. The comment says I should not use IMDB as a source. Should I only rely on media outlets to confirm an actor's role in a a film or television show? Thanks! SamuelCulper (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SamuelCulper. Articles about actors must meet the special notability requirements as laid out in WP:NACTOR. So far you draft does not show notability of Josha. Qcne (talk) 19:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:39, 24 December 2023 review of submission by Scottalexeden

I don't understand the guidelines. Scottalexeden (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have someone else write my biography? If so, what references should I use? My record label (https://soundcloud.com/willyreedrecords) can easily be confirmed as my booking agency (www.livemusicgroup.org). They are both online and can be verified. Scottalexeden (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scottalexeden Wikipedia is not a platform to be used to promote your musical career. That is what your agency is for. We have a special definition of notability (the guidelines is at WP:NMUSICIAN for musicians). You do not meet that threshold. Even if you did, you should not be writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) and your draft is more suitable for a LinkedIn bio or a personal web page, not an online encyclopedia.
In any case, the draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further, including if it was written by someone else. Qcne (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 25

01:43, 25 December 2023 review of submission by 102.88.34.63

Why's my biography page not accepted 

102.88.34.63 (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been deleted as promotional. In any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself (assuming that's what you mean by "my biography page"), for reasons outlined in WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:13, 25 December 2023 review of submission by BhikhariInformer

I want to add an image of the artist but I am confused regarding the license and free use of the image restrictions. The image I want to add.....I have downloaded it from the artist's own Facebook page. So, can you please assist me regarding how should I upload the image and under which license and stuff .

Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BhikhariInformer: short answer is no, you should not. Most images you find on the internet are subject to copyright, unless expressly and unambiguously noted otherwise.
In any case, you're talking about a published article, whereas this help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process.
You should probably ask at the Commons, where they know much more about these things; see c:Help:Contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks BhikhariInformer (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Monique Reymond

while I understand the first drafts were problematic, corrections were made. I like wikipedia a lot. But, I've noticed mistakes and tried to include verifiable proof of errors for those posts I've checked. That being said, I believe there is sexism who are all to active in presenting their misogyny on this forum. This is terribly disappointing. Monique Reymond (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Monique Reymond: and Merry Christmas to you, too! Did you have an actual question to ask, or you just wanted to hurl some accusations around? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:04, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Daninbrisvegas

Page has been edited, with additional secondary sources added, close to 3 weeks now. There are far worse union pages that are published. When will it be reviewed? Daninbrisvegas (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daninbrisvegas: this draft was resubmitted on the 11th, which by my reckoning was two weeks ago. As it says there, reviews can take 2-3 weeks, as we have 600+ other drafts to review also. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Lucid ua

I cannot understand where my article does not meet the requirements, namely, where the article has a non-encyclopedic tone and why the sources I have cited are not reliable? lucid ua (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Gwalior page

Why the content is not available on google? What should be done to ensure it is there? 

Gwalior page (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Gwalior page

the article, which is an Indian social worker's bio, has not been published. Why? Gwalior page (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Gwalior page

Why the article submitted by me has not appeared? Gwalior page (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gwalior page: please don't start multiple threads, thank you.
This draft has not been accepted, that's why it "has not appeared".
The draft is entirely unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable. Please see WP:YFA for advice on article creation, and WP:REFB on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I left my usual deletion notice and critiqued the ref's mentioned on user's talk. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Jark.ouyi

参考资料不满足吗还是什么问题呢 Jark.ouyi (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jark.ouyi: this is the English-language Wikipedia; please ask your questions in English. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:48, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Smalamin001

What's the problem? Smalamin001 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Smalamin001

I'm not do any type of promotions. I think you have mistakes. I have created a new page about a small actor from Bangladesh his name is AL-AMIN. Who has gained 2 lakh subscribers on his YouTube channel at a very young age. Smalamin001 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page was blatant promotion from start to finish. If you can really post a whole page of stuff about how you are "a versatile and talented person", that you "can inspire and influence others with [your] words", and so on and so and so on... and really honestly not think that it's promotional, then you have such a blindness to the nature of your own writing that you may never be able to contribute in the neutral way required by Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gaining "2 lakh subscribers on his YouTube channel" confers precisely zero notability. 19:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs)

18:52, 25 December 2023 review of submission by Henry.precheur

I made the suggested modifications, i removed the one article which was referred to twice as a footnote and I provided over 30 additional content showing notability, most remarkable: The subject being received twice by the Minister of housing (Mr. Eby is now the prime minister of British Columbia) to tackle the housing crisis. I also added numerous news releases ( more than 20) covering Aissa Aggoune as the French media liaison for the union and representing more than 500 tenants in the supreme court and winning the court cases despite not being a lawyer. I also included the Wikipedia article which already exists for the past few years and mentions the subject by name Aissa Aggoune. I also added the VTU website confirming the subject sits on the steering committee of the Union. I hope you will be satisfied with these changes and will move the article as accepted! Thank you and have a wonderful holiday season! Henry.precheur (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Henry.precheur: do you have a question you would like to ask? Otherwise all you need to do, now that the draft has been resubmitted, is to wait for the next review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1191823975"