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 Liv.unohchr (talk | contribs) at 08:36, 9 January 2024 (→16:08, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Liv.unohchr: Reply). 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


January 3

02:11, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 172.113.157.142

I'm not sure why my entree was declined. I read the explanation by the reviewer, but didn't understand it. I cited 5 different news sources to back up my writing. All the sources are very much so reliable. Long Beach Post is one of the main news sources in Long Beach, California, USA. Glas Srpske is literally one of the oldest and most reputable newspapers in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Similarly, when speaking about film news and film critiques in specific, Film Threat is one of the more known film reviewers.

I was planning to expend on this topic, too, but to my understanding, articles can start small and then be expended on once published. Am I not right about that? I basically didn't want to do too much work on this article, or any other future article for that matter, until they don't get approved/published first because what's the point of spending hours and hours of research and writing just to be declined in the end? Honestly, that is one of my biggest fears. I don't have that much free time on my hands to do all this work and then go nowhere with it. I hope you understand what I'm talking about here.

In any case, I would appreciate if someone could explain to me why this specific entree was declined because if I want to fix it and resubmit it, I obviously would first need to know what was the actual issue with it. I'm not an experienced Wiki writer – this was my first attempt – but I felt I did a pretty good job of finding some legitimate information about the topic and referencing enough of different reliable news sources to back up my findings. 172.113.157.142 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant SNG notability guideline for the subject is WP:NDIRECTOR, which it doesn't meet. Therefore, you need to establish notability following WP:GNG guidelines. The sources you provided don't offer significant coverage of the subject. Now, you need to add at least three reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage of the subject and are independent of it. Regarding your other question about expanding the article after creation, yes, you can expand an article later, but there should be a minimum context in the article initially. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Help:Your first article. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I'll visit the pages you linked me to and see if I can fix the issue. This director is by no means Stanley Kubrick, but I saw his film Toni at the film festival in Tacoma a couple of months ago and felt like more people should know about him. 172.113.157.142 (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Note that "more people should know about him" is explicitly not a good reason to write a Wikipedia article: it is exactly what Wikipedia means by promotion, which is forbidden.
Wikipedia isn't interested in a subject until several other people with no connection to the subject have chosen to write at some length about the subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:42, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Reghvargas

Goo day! I'm requesting assistance due to my article not approve or declined because it says the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I need help with this problem issue am experiencing. I want a published my own article in internet via Wikipedia to know everyone who am. Rest assured that the article I created is simple, reliable, and sourcesable for each person search me on the web. Please let know that the "References" is correct, verified, which is the official website of my media broadcasting company/studio/radio station here in my workplace at municipality of caluya antique philippines. Hope can help me to this and I thank you! Reghvargas (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reghvargas: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please note that writing autobiographies is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reghvargas, your references are not independent of the topic, and without references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic (Regie Tablate), the draft cannot possibly be accepted. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY to learn why what you are trying to do is a bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's important to note that you cannot use a primary source to establish notability or support any statement in a BLP; secondary sources are required. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Ditri Charron

Please help me with the text about our company. At a time when every minor celebrity has a Wiki page. I am unable to add information about our company, which operates worldwide. I will be grateful for any help. Ditri Charron (talk) 03:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ditri Charron, the company should adhere to WP:NCORP for Wikipedia inclusion. It needs significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that can be summarized in the article. If you're connected with this company, disclosure is required; please refer to WP:PAID and WP:COI. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, for the info. Please do you think, that the coverage is OK now? Because i do not know, what more than the industry patents can company do for their references. I do not have more references now. Dou you think that i have chance to put the company on wiki? I will take the look on WP:PAID and WP:COI but im manager from the company. Thank you so, so much for the info and best regars. Ditri Charron (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, with the current content and sources, it is not notable; that's why it was declined. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Ditri Charron (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:06, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 2.50.172.101

Why is this article rejected when the entity has credible independent news sources? 2.50.172.101 (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this appears to fall under WP:BLP1E as almost all of the sources focus on when Narendra Modi praised him for his skill. However, his involvement in the WorldSkills championship is a second significant event, which could justify a standalone article. Nonetheless, since it was created by a sockpuppet and a previous reviewer suggested disclosing any potential conflicts of interest, it's necessary to disclose any connection you may have with the subject. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the entity has enough independent news articles written about him. As per the research, find the below mentioned articles with respect to the already added ones in the draft.
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/art/twenty-two-year-old-graphic-artist-talks-about-his-varied-awards-and-prizes-he-has-accumulated-over-the-years/article67387932.ece
https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/graphic-skills-bengalurean-reigns-supreme/articleshow/103409985.cms
https://www.globalindian.com/youth/story/global-indian-exclusive/steven-harris-ramdev-from-worldskills-victory-to-global-mentorship/
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/bengaluru/heartwarming-bengalurean-artist-wows-pm-modi-1023844.html
Kindly refer to these sources that indicate as independent articles about the entity and do the needful. Thank you. 2.50.172.101 (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you say about sources does not negate the point made about BLP1E.
You were also asked to disclose any COI you may have in this matter.
I note that you have resubmitted the draft without any improvement, or without addressing the COI issue. If you keep doing that, this draft can and eventually will be rejected without option to resubmit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also inform you that "do the needful" is generally considered rude outside of India. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Floh Kenya

how do i reference my own biography? Floh Kenya (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't. stop writing about yourself. ltbdl (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Floh Kenya: the short answer is, you shouldn't be writing your own biography in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO.
The slightly longer answer is, you shouldn't be writing what you know about yourself, but only summarising what reliable and independent secondary sources have said about you. You then cite those sources, and there's your referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Vairankodepooram20

my Wikipedia Articles rejected or ???? if there is any mistake please let me know i Need help Vairankodepooram20 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vairankodepooram20: this draft (not yet an article) has, indeed, been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vairankodepooram20 Please read through the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Once you understand how to reference using in-line citations, you may ping me on my user talk page and I will look at this draft again. Qcne (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:22, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Niklas.Andersson.95

Hi!

I want some help with the Theoria page. I have been working on it since last year, but then I needed to focus on other things. Now I want to come back and complete the page. As it stands right now, it says the page needs either more citations or to remove passages that are unsupported or too promotional. Is there anyone who could guide me through each part so I can make the necessary edits?

Thanks in advance! Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Niklas.Andersson.95: the feedback provided by the last reviewer is still relevant, and you can improve it accordingly. In summary, please add reliable secondary sources or remove unsourced paragraphs. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for the quick response! Can I see where these sections need to be either removed or edited, meaning, have they been marked somehow? Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Niklas.Andersson.95 Ideally every fact, assertation, paragraph, or section should be appropriately sourced (going in order from most common to least). Qcne (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, the 'Abstracting and Indexing' section in the draft lacks sources; hence, you need to add reliable sources for all the entries in this section. If you're unable to find sources to support certain statements, consider removing the unsourced material. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is most helpful, thanks! I am kind of relearning editing on Wikipedia as it has been a while now. Is it okay to ask here again about the editing of the page? Niklas.Andersson.95 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry at all! Feel free to ask anytime, just make sure to add your question in this same section and ping me so I can help. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Mayukhjitc

i have seen on "WP:MN" that i do qualify for musician notability due to rule 9. Mayukhjitc (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayukhjitc: your draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. Please note that writing biographies is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, i understand it has been rejected but is there nothing i can do about it......
it was rejected by qcne and his/her only reason of rejection was notability
however, i do qualify for notability and have replied there.... stil no reply form him/her
could you read my draft Mayukhjitc (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answered on my User Talk page, we're all volunteers so I don't think an 18 minute wait between your post and my reply is particularly long! Qcne (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes sorry..... my bad Mayukhjitc (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mayukhjitc If you truly do meet the definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually write about you. Articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject.
I suggest that you read with a parent or guardian this page about how an article is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. My advice is that you go on about your music career and forget about Wikipedia, and if you truly are notable, an article will organically develop. Trying to force the issue is rarely successful. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest that you read this page with a parent or guardian. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 5.195.38.6

Could you please create living person's biography 5.195.38.6 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every living person merits a Wikipedia article- the overwhelming majority of the 8 billion people on this planet do not. This isn't like social media where anyone that exists merits inclusion- there must be coverage of this person in independent reliable sources like the news that can then be summarized in an article. Your draft was rejected because you offered no sources at all. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490

I would like to understand about the notability reason about your rejection. Obviously, Josammy Technology is the greatest wonder that is accomplished to rehabilitate and satisfy human curiosity in all levels of science and their life. It is notably meant for laymen, scientists, and philosophers who are focusing on the hardest and critical questions relating our existence and our presence in planet. Josammy technology solve all universe enigma and explains the reactivities of dark energy and dark matter. The composition of dark matter and dark energy is 95% of universe. This scientist should understand the reactivities of dark energy otherwise they mislead people. Dark energy is the clue of science and universe comprehension. Josammy technology is the highest world technology that displays and explains all the reactivities of dark energy, dark matter, Higgs Boson reactivities, superconductivities and superfluidity reactivities. However, gravity has been poorly explained since the earliest time mankind still have enigma and low level of science comprehension. I believe it would be worth trying to learn about real universe with technology Josammy. 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Seawolf35 T--C 17:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seawolf35 Why be so rude about it bruh???/ Still This is not neutral and is biased. You literally said "Obviously, Josammy Technology is the greatest wonder" and so on. think about it your self.
Please don't react @Seawolf35 and backfire on my page. Im just being honest and giving you tips, though i am a starter True cr1m33 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@True cr1m33 I am sorry how is this relevant, and I did not say that. The draft was deleted under WP:G11 for being promotional. Seawolf35 T--C 22:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seawolf35 im sorry i didnt know. But above in the large paragraph it says that. I assumed it was u as ur name is signed underneath. Srry True cr1m33 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:15, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Aminur7699

Please review my page Aminur7699 (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aminur7699 We don’t do pre reviews here, but your draft would be rejected if you submitted it. Seawolf35 T--C 17:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 3 January 2024 review of submission by True cr1m33

I got declined because apparently it was unreliable and false and didn't describe enough? So i will keep trying to edit my writing wiki. 'kay. But i would like to ask how to make it more reliable and to use references. i appeal to get mine published.

Sorry if if i seemed rude im extremely thankful to wiki. *smiley* Pls answer my query True cr1m33 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @True cr1m33, I think your draft would be better suited to https://a-good-girls-guide-to-murder.fandom.com (the Fandom Wiki) for this book series, not Wikipedia.
I am afraid we don't accept articles about fictional characters with no sources, written in the way you wrote your draft. Qcne (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Qcne, thank you for your speedy reply and telling me about fandom wiki as that is a lot more helpful for me if i want to write about fictional characters. @Qcne D'you think it's a good idea to write about a recap of 2023 (celeb edition). *love heart* thanks for your time and dedication
yours @True cr1m33 True cr1m33 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:29, 3 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:5C2:202:2700:7466:1C0E:800E:3EA0

My article said "Congratulations" and accepted as start-class. What does that mean? 2601:5C2:202:2700:7466:1C0E:800E:3EA0 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means 'congratulations', your draft has been accepted and published as an article in the encyclopaedia; and it has been rated as 'start' class, meaning it's a good start but there's still plenty of potential for further improvement. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Aw.griffioen

This page (Draft:IBoost_technology) was rejected for unknown reasons. It mentions 'do not cite predatory journals'. To my knowledge, there are only citations to legitimate high-impact scientific journals. Please help mewith solving this issue. Aw.griffioen (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About predatory journals: I suggest you ask Johannes Maximilian (who made the comment) which citations he is unhappy with.
But I also need to ask whether you are familiar with the stricter requirements on sourcing for articles on medical subjects: WP:MEDRS? ColinFine (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia marks predatory journals with a virtual highlighter, so it's pretty easy to spot.
  • I suggest putting effort into drafting articles; refbombing, i.e., adding a stupidly high number of footnotes to a sentence to make it seem more profound, does not count as such, especially when there was obviously no effort put into choosing good sources to cite. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 3 January 2024 review of submission by Dvisionentmt

How can I make this subject look notable to Wikipedia. Dvisionentmt (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dvisionentmt I am sorry but no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I would would strongly encourage you to not write about yourself, writing about yourself means you have a large conflict of interest with the subject of your draft. Seawolf35 T--C 23:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted the correct amount of information and sources to note Tina Moreni who is an American rapper, I am not her but it's surprising to me that she has yet to have a Wikipedia article. Would love to receive some help as there are plenty of articles about her yet none were seemed notable to Wikipedia. Dvisionentmt (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dvisionentmt I am not going to overturn the rejection of the last reviewer, you can appeal to them at User talk:DreamRimmer if you think you have sources that support the notability of the subject.
@DreamRimmer: courtesy ping. Seawolf35 T--C 23:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

01:45, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Go1denScarab

Hello: I am trying to create a page about Eugene Chodorow with a friend of mine. Hee is thee Historian and I am the tech guy.

The draft has been denied seemingly because it does not have enough external links to show that enough people are/were talking about Eugene. I notice that there is a much shorter page for August Henkel that has even fewer links. I am confused.

Can someone please give me some concrete advice on what I need to do to make the Chodorow article acceptable?

Thank you Go1denScarab Go1denScarab (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen may also be inappropriate amd simply not addressed yet. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community.
The main purpose of an article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. Much of your draft is unsourced. 331dot (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A corollary to what 331dot says: if there is little or no independent published information about a subject, then there is little or no material that can go into an article! Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490

Dark energy and dark matter represent 95% of universe. However, mankind never understood the reactivities of universe because dark energy governs universe in microscopic scale as well in macroscopic scale. Nobody can assume to understand science and universe without considering the impact reactivities of dark energy. This is a reason to which we have a lot of enigmas in all fields of science. The basic reactivity between proton and electron in the atom is not understood yet. They mislead mankind. The big bang theories and all universal science are misinterpreted, and they seem to be pseudo-science because they never understand the implication reactivities of dark energy, dark matter, Higgs Boson, superfluidity and superconductivity, universe expansion reactivities in the process development of universe. Obviously, with no implication of dark energy no one can assume to understand science and technology. Gravity has been poorly explained since the earliest time, and we still have a lot of enigmas. People tend to be blissfully unaware of their incompetence. This lack of awareness because poor performance is doubly course. Their lack of skills deprives them not only of ability to produce correct responses, but also the expertise necessary to understand that they not producing them. In this planet, people base their perceptions of performance, in part, on their preconceived notions about their wrong skills, because notions often these notions do not correlate with objective performance, they can lead people to make judgements about their performance that have little to do with accomplishment. Obviously, I discovered reactivities of dark energy and all universe and understand the real reactivities of dark energy and all universes. I challenge all mankind on gravity knowledge my legitimate goal is to explains the real reactivities of universe to all people in this planet. Alpha & Omega thermodynamic Sigma ZG Matrix is the highest world technology, explains all universe reactivities and solves all scientific enigmas. I am illuminating this world on Gravity knowledge with implication of dark energy reactivities. What is your problem with my discoveries? I just want to illuminate this world with gravity knowledge? 2600:1700:D3F0:C250:55B1:D3A8:6F69:F490 (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please just stop this 'Mostini Planet' nonsense. You're wasting your own time as well as everyone else's. This topic has less than zero chance of being accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:16, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Linddaski

I am just trying to find a sandbox and have no idea what has been rejected. as far as I know, I did not submit anything to anything. Is there a way to start over? Linddaski (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Linddaski, it looks like you submitted your draft for review by mistake- it was declined as it was blank. That's okay though: feel free to edit your sandbox to prepare the draft and, when ready, click the blue Resubmit button. Qcne (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. i didn't see a blank page, but rather something I know nothing about. In a previous attempt to find a sandbox, I saw my own introduction. There's a video from Wikipedia that gives directions to get to a sand box that is out of date. Are there current directions that you are sure work? Do you think it is possible to do this if you don't code? 216.147.121.102 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(remember to log in, you seem to have logged yourself out).
I would recommend the Visual Editor which is a Microsoft Word-style editor which means you can create and edit articles without having to know our coding language called Wikitext. It is not quite as feature rich as the code editor but should be totally okay for beginners: I use it a lot.
The tutorials for the Visual Editor are in that above link. Your sandbox is located at User:Linddaski/sandbox and feel free to play about with the Visual Editor - that's what the sandbox is for.
If you do accidentally submit it for review, don't worry. Mistakes can happen! Qcne (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:53, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 122.176.19.127

need to help on submitting the article on autobiography. Which is denied by you. So how can I improve the same article? So I can submit it without any denied. 122.176.19.127 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication this person passes our notability criteria, and the draft is written in a completely unacceptable way. Qcne (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:54:04, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Miracle for0110


Hello!

I did paraphrasing, but since my sources are in Thai, I must be ready with this too: WP:RSUEC and lead me to include this: WP:RSUEQ.

References: 2, 14, 15

Sources: Elle Men, Vogue, Elle

Is it fine, or copyright?

What should I do if it's not allowed to quote and trans for footnotes?

Will it be okay if I put the English trans but change the quote in Thai into something like: (see paragraph with bold parts) or (see the second paragraph from the end part)?

Or not even trans and directly put those see here, see there? Miracle for0110 (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miracle for0110: sorry, I'm really struggling to understand what you're asking, but I'll take a wild guess... Yes, you are allowed to quote a source, as long as you mark it clearly as a quotation. Yes, it's okay to cite non-English sources. Yes, it would help the reviewers (and later readers) if you could include in the citation a short quotation translated into English. Does any of that answer your question(s)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer and verifying~
And maybe I should have highlighted the copyright part.
Elle Men. Vogue. Elle. With these 3 fashion magazines (Thailand), can I still do all of them?
I'm new and don't know... not sure how copyright works for this type of source... Miracle for0110 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miracle for0110, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean either. You're perfectly allowed to quote the Thai. That isn't a copyright violation. -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean like this one, I found it later on... https://vogue.co.th/privacy (the legal part). Turn out, we can't for free. Texts and images are not allowed to redistribute without getting their direct consent. No fair-use for Thai fashion magazines. So I've decided to remove them all...
@Asilvering Thank you for your nice response~
To @DoubleGrazing too, for trying to help me out earlier~ Miracle for0110 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miracle for0110, that refers to copying out large sections of text. A brief direct quotation is perfectly fine. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving me assurance about this topic! I will remember it for my next time 💙 Miracle for0110 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 58.146.122.144

can you please help me to create this page 58.146.122.144 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Stopdeletingposts!

what what? lol why wiki keep on stoping this post it's truth. Stopdeletingposts! (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't written a Wikipedia page, you've written a series of bullet points. We are looking for an encyclopaedic article that is summarising information from reliable sources. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Naomicreative

Hi, I've submitted a draft article for review ( John Cameron T.V presenter) but I am new to this and wondered if you could advise if this has successfully made it to the review stage? When tried to publish I received the notification - No stashed content found for 1190716733/92fef679-9e69-11ee-bd29-d094663b40e2. I would be so grateful for any feedback and advice so that I can publish this. Many thanks, Naomi Naomicreative (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Naomicreative: sorry, I can't find any record of a draft like that in your edit history. Could you have done this under another account, or from an IP (ie. unregistered) user? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is this Draft:John Cameron (British Antiques Expert and TV Presenter). Theroadislong (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're helping this user over on the WP:HELPDESK too. You wouldn't know, @Naomicreative, but we try not to have multiple threads on the same topic across different help forums as it can get confusing. Qcne (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes this is the one. Pls can you advise what I need to do next. Much appreciated. Naomicreative (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your username appears to indicate a professional connection, please disclose any paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving my message over from the Help Desk...
Thanks @Naomicreative, yep you created this draft while logged out. That's okay though.
You've not actually submitted this for review yet, so I'm not sure where you got the "Review waiting..." message from. By any chance is there a second draft, similarly named?
To submit for review click the blue Submit the draft for review! button. However, don't do that yet as the draft has some inappropriate language and incorrect referencing in it and would be declined in it's present state.
You currently have no references but a bunch of empty in-line citations, which makes me think you perhaps copied the draft from somewhere, maybe Microsoft Word? We need in-line citations for every statement. I would recommend following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE to understand how to do this.
Some of the inappropriate language that breaks our neutrality policy includes:
- renowned for his appearances
- consistent expert presenter
- diverse portfolio
- featured nostalgic songs
- often sought after for his after-dinner auctioneering expertise and knowledge
Please have a read of our WP:NPOV policy.
Let us know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for coming back to me. Really appreciate the help. I will work on editing the wording. Should I log in and start again and make sure it has in line citations? thanks Naomicreative (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Parizadshaikh

Hi, i hope you are well. I am looking for publishing my draft ,but i dont know how much time will it take or how do. i give references? Parizadshaikh (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parizadshaikh Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles about people summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia defintion of a notable person. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. Your draft is completely unsourced and does not at all make clear what makes you a notable person. The vast majority of the 8 billion people on this planet do not merit Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Miladhshahi

Hi, I’m trying to create a Behzad Heidarishahi Wikipedia page with sufficient information and sources. But I couldn’t quite figure out why it's been declined. Would appreciate your help in understanding the issue, please.

Kind regards, Milad Heidarishahi Miladhshahi (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miladhshahi: this draft was declined for inadequate referencing. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using inline citations and footnotes. Also, you have listed a number of external sources under 'References', but those are not cited anywhere, and are therefore not particularly useful for anything. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Robertforwork

How can I rewrite a conclusion? Robertforwork (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertforwork: sorry, I don't understand the question – what "conclusion"? If you mean the section that usually comes at the end of an essay or similar, then encyclopaedia articles do not include such conclusions, principally because our job as article writers is to present facts and leave it for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
In any case, this draft has now been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry i write it wrong.
It's said "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."
How i can pass this warning and what i should do? Robertforwork (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. You offered no sources other than those associated with the company. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. If you are able to do that, please appeal to the last reviewer and offer the independent sources you can summarize.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, please see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Reliablerani

i have added citations too, what is the problem with the article? please help me fix it Reliablerani (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not properly used in-line citations. Instead, you have used external links and then dumped the bare URLs at the bottom of the article. This is not how articles should be formatted.
You will need to re-create all the citations properly using in-line citations. Please follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
The article will be declined again if the citations do not follow our standard. Qcne (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reliablerani: the problem is that your draft only cites one source (twice). It then has inline external links, which aren't actually even allowed, as well as a number of additional external links at the end. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing using the dynamic method of inline citations and footnotes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh thankyou so much 103.58.154.165 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 888AE0

My text for it is not popping up. Also i have more ideas for the tag things. I would put “Irish dance” and “Down syndrome” I hope this gets fixed. 888AE0 (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has never had any text in it other than "why is it all gone"; if you had typed it in somewhere, it is now lost unfortunately. You may edit the draft to add text and sources. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why was if rejected again. I DID AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY ABOUT ME. 888AE0 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not start a new thread for every post, just edit this existing section. Wikipedia is not for autobiographies, please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Emanon17

I'm unsure about the specific reasons the UCINET page submission was rejected. I understand the references are at fault, and I would like to better understand what specific areas (e.g. not in-depth enough, reliable, independent, etc.) need to be addressed and any specific examples from the draft UCINET page. Emanon17 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft just tells of this software and what it does, it does not summarize significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources showing how it is notable- what do independent sources consider to be important/significant/influential about it? 331dot (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 4 January 2024 review of submission by 122.172.74.215

Please explain me as I can this artist is notable on Google by name arunadh007 122.172.74.215 (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced drafts that do not demonstrate notability will not be accepted. If this person meets our definition of a notable musician, you haven't demonstrated that. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, sorry. Qcne (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by Louep147


Draft article: Draft:EssentialTech Centre

Hello, I do not understand the reason for the article being declined: I rewrote the article with numerous additional sources (mostly peer-reviewed journals) and can see little difference between the declined article and the accepted one on a similar topic, here: Harvard Humanitarian Initiative

Many thanks in advance. Louep147 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content like "renowned for its contributions to science, technology, and engineering." "one of Switzerland's leading universities" "address global challenges through a multifaceted approach that applies technological innovation to three intersecting challenges" "EssentialTech uses a holistic approach" "a number of initiatives that have garnered significant attention in the humanitarian and development space" is promotional, marketing garbage. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists; that another article exists does not mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. It too could be inappropriate, and you would be unaware of this. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are good articles. 331dot (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard Humanitarian Initiative is a VERY poor article with a number of issues and should probably be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the (somewhat dismissive) feedback. That wasn't what I understood as the reason why the article was rejected though: both reviewers seemed to cite an issue with the sources instead. Are you saying that if the language is adjusted to more neutral, then the sources are largely ok and it should be accepted? Louep147 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not show that this organization meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Are you associated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, our intention is not to be "dismissive", but to be clear to avoid misunderstanding. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries: it was just the "promotional, marketing garbage" line that riled me a little.
I do not work there, but I do work in a related sector in the geographical area and it was frustrating me that there was no entry for an organisation that is considered 'notable' locally and in the aid sector internationally.
The peer-reviewed journals in which it publishes are some of the highest-ranked in the world and there are numerous sources of national newspapers in the references. To me, it would seem that this should ensure it meets at least some of the criteria outlined in your link of 'notable organisation'. Either that, or the definition is just very arbitrary and US-centric.
Any further advice on whether this is worth redrafting is much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Louep147 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louep147: there is nothing US-centric or arbitrary about the definition of a notable organisation (and I quote from WP:ORGCRIT): "[an] organization [...] is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
Publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals is not a notability criterion for organisations.
I'm not quite sure what 'local' or 'sectoral' notability might mean in the context of Wikipedia's definition of notability, except to say that hyperlocal secondary sources are usually not considered sufficient for establishing notability, as they tend to have very low threshold for publishing local-interest stories.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that then would be fundamental issue: for someone who has an interest in the aid or medical device sector (or lives in a geographic area where aid is provided), this would be considered useful information, worthy of an article that could help provide knowledge. To a generalist Europe or US-based editor, it is not considered as relevant as information on a band etc...
I would argue against the claim that national newspaper coverage counts as 'hyperlocal', but it seems the editorial line is otherwise. Thanks for the feedback; it's disappointing that Wikipedia lacks the editorial diversity required to create something that is useful for all, but understandable. Louep147 (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Louep147: just to be clear, I didn't say that national newspapers are hyperlocal. You stated that this subject is "'notable' locally", and I was just picking up on that to qualify the 'secondary sources' part of the notability guideline, in that very local media may not be sufficient to establish global notability. In saying this, I make a distinction between local and national.
Apart from that, the issue hinges on Wikipedia's concept of 'notability', which does not mean 'importance' or 'fame' or 'usefulness' etc., but instead whether the subject has been previously covered in appropriate publications or media. This is a fundamental prerequisite, because Wikipedia only summarises such coverage. From this it inevitably follows that if such coverage does not exist, it cannot be summarised, and therefore an article on that subject cannot be published in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 4 January 2024 review of submission by SapiensYK

Not sure how to fix my footnotes. Also not sure how to submit the article for review Yustyn Kokor (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To resubmit just click the "resubmit" button in the decline message. You must remove all citations to Wikipedia- Wikipedia articles cannot be used to cite other Wikipedia articles. 331dot (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 5

00:14, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Hcaandersen

While watching the major Netflix production, Power Book III: Raising Kanan, with my son, I Googled the lead actor, Mekai Curtis, and was surprised to see that he didn't have a Wikipedia article. Being an occasional Wikipedia contributor, I thought this would be my opportunity to fill an obvious hole. Unfortunately it keeps getting rejected. The reason given is that the article doesn't reference "significant coverage". I've included citations from People, Variety and The Hollywood Reporter (see below). These are about as significant as I could imagine. What more can I do?

00:45, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Jm33746

I am interested in improving this draft so it can be approved for publication. What do I need to do Jm33746 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jm33746 I think this was declined in error, and have resubmitted it for you. Sorry about that. -- asilvering (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:27, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Gswapp

Can you guide me how to not meet this rejection, I just want it to be provide info about my company Gswapp (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gswapp your sandbox is blank, and I find no rejected draft in your edit history - unless it was deleted for unambiguous promotion.
Wikipedia is not a company directory, but an encyclopaedia about notable topics. Most organisations do not meet our specific definition of a "notable company". It is prohibited to use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. Qcne (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was an earlier (very promotional) draft in the sandbox, but it was G11'd about an hour ago.
@Gswapp: I can tell you that I can pretty close to asking you to be blocked for promotional editing. Please do not attempt to recreate the draft. Also, read the warnings I've posted on your talk page about promotion (not allowed) and paid-editing (disclosure required). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Infoprovider434

Help Me To Add Reference Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further; you may learn more about referencing at Referencing for Beginners, but that won't save this draft. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infoprovider434: you apparently know how to add references, since you've added three (not particularly useful ones, but at least you know how this is done). Your bigger problem is that there is no meaningful content, and no sign of any notability.
That said, this draft has now been rejected, and won't be considered further, so you're on something of a hiding to nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Artical About A New Launched Company Desi Beats Whose In Bassi Himachal Pradesh India Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New companies almost never merit articles- a company must be established and recognized in its field to receive the coverage necessary to meet our policies. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh So Sorry But Please Help Me Sir To Publish My Artical Please Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infoprovider434 no, the article has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Qcne (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ohk Sir Thanks but help me to add Referance Infoprovider434 (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Infoprovider434: perhaps you're not familiar with the expression 'hiding to nothing'. It means mission impossible; there is nothing to be done. You need to drop this topic and move on. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 5 January 2024 review of submission by IRTHEORY2021

Thank you for your feedback. I diligently incorporated your suggestions. Please assess whether the resources, as per multiple independent sources, meet the rigorous standards of your encyclopedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. IRTHEORY2021 (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. It's not necessary to comment here unless you have a question. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will gather additional independent sources and get back to you within the next couple of days. IRTHEORY2021 (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IRTHEORY2021 Please don't make a new thread for every post, just edit this existing section while it is on this page. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:55, 5 January 2024 review of submission by Woiakl

I have already added reliable, independent sources last time, but it seems that they have not been seen. Woiakl (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Woiakl: firstly, refs #1-4 are the organisation's own website, #6 is a book published for the organisation, and #7 is about the HQ move and not about the organisation as such. This is not enough to establish notability. Also, most of the main body content still remains unreferenced – where is all that info coming from?
Secondly, you shouldn't just resubmit a declined draft without addressing the decline reason(s). Or if you disagree with the reasons, you need to discuss this with the reviewer. Resubmitting without any improvement triggers an automatic decline, and if you keep doing that the draft will eventually be rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 5 January 2024 review of submission by 98.212.212.76

Hello, 

 I am requesting a review for this article because I do not think the initial reviewer took a look at the Nigerian Newspapers with Articles on this subject that I referenced. The reviewer declined it in error. For example, is the Independent Newspaper Nigeria, QED.NG Nigerian Newspaper, Imo State Nigeria Trumpeta Newspaper, YES celebrities Nigeria or the other Nigerian Newspapers and publications included not reliable or representative of the country's News and the Entertainment industry?  Not independent of the artist? Not self-published?  Is the Globcal United Nations Website not reliable or independent of this artist and ambassador?  Are the Awards publications included non-reliable and not independent of the artist? I am seeing many articles about other Nigerian Artists that have almost nothing in them accepted for Wikipedia publication.  Some of the Wikipedia requirements which this subject meets include:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent of the musician or ensemble itself. 

         I have included some things that are out there about this artist, and I don't think there has been a fair and thorough review of submitted information.  I understand some articles are published but noted for needing improvement or with errors.  This would make more sense since this is usually a work in progress.  But completely declining this submission is far-fetched.  I am requesting a fair and complete review of the submission.  98.212.212.76 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite an accusation to make, to say that the reviewer didn't look at the sources. What do you base this on?
The first thing that strikes me is that most of the information is unreferenced, which is completely unacceptable in an article/draft on a living person. This could have been declined for that reason alone.
Large chunks of it appear to have been copied from this source. It could also have been declined for that reason.
To sum up, declining was far from far-fetched. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you are Jewels of Africa, please remember to log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am logged into my account. What I am saying is that the "reviewer" stated exacly the decline reason: that the references need to be from verifiable sources independent of the artist/ambassador. It doesn't make sense that ALL the National Newspapers with articles on this Artist are not verifiable? Please we need to be careful to maintain the quality of not only publications but review that we profess. Even your response telling me that declining was not far-fetched, without being specific doesn't make sense. You are saying the article is unreferenced, while the reviewer is saying the references need to be from reliable sources independent of the subject; indicating the article is actually referenced? If you believe it "appears" copied, if the same information is carried by different sources about the artist, and you see that I wrote similar about her, should I then make up things about her so as to make my article different? Or shouldn't much of the information online about her be able to be verified as similar?
Is the source you actually mention also an unreliable source that is NOT separate from the subject? I still say the same thing, you are not clear in how you select articles to improve on, and those you completely decline. Even Awards that are verifiable and relevant, backed by Hollywood, and published in these articles with the actual Award links shared, are still not verifiable by your editor? Artist Notability according to you, NEED to include just one thing: Winning a relevant award, representing something significant in that area, Being published in major reliable independent sources. This artist meets all three. You are saying that the Major Nigerian Newspapers are not reliable, since their articles are included. You are saying, that even the United Nations is not reliable, since the link included showing this woman is also a UN/SDG's ambassador with Globcal International, with both the Globcal webpage link, the UN webpage link, and her designated Ambassador page unverifiable? I think something is wrong with your assessment. Jewels of Africa (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jewels of Africa sources as serve two purposes, verifiability and notability. You can certainly use the institution giving an award as a source to verify Alu won the award, but that is a primary source and not independent so not useful for notability same with interviews or anything Alu says which is what the "news" sources largely are so not useful for notability, nor is her website. The UN link is broke but again, they are a primary source. I am not sure what you mean by an award being backed by "Hollywood". Hollywood is a neighborhood, Hollywood, Los Angeles and also used to refer to the movie and entertainment industry in the United States. If it is a major industry award, it will be covered by Variety, Deadline Hollywood and the like.
In order for a source to be useful for notability it needs to meet all four criteria linked in the decline message: reliable (have evidence of editorial oversight, established history of fact-checking), secondary (this includes the content within the source, interviews are primary), intellectually independent (this includes the content within the source; interviews, sponsored/brand posts, press releases, etc. are not independent) and cover the subject in-depth in the authors owns words based on their own research, analysis, etc.
As for copying from sources, an independent administrator reviewed the content in the draft and the source and agreed it was copied so did violate copyright. Copyright violations are a legal issue for both Wikipedia and the person who added the content, in this case you, so the content is now deleted.
If you interact with editors in the same manner you have here, making baseless accusations and using caps which means you are shouting at people (see shout) I doubt anyone will respond to you. I did so a courtesy to a new editor who does not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which is understandable. You may not like or understand what someone is telling you but you do need to remain civil. And one last note, if you have any affiliation with Mercy Alu, you need to declare your conflict of interest. I will leave some additional information on your talk page. S0091 (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:54, 5 January 2024 review of submission by 37.171.217.76

I edited my draft twice but they are rejecting it again by giving same reason: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

Can you please tell me what is wrong here? 37.171.217.76 (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some inappropriate phrases:
- professional journey
- His tenure was marked by adaptability
- Bashir dedicated time to community service Qcne (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

05:18, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Kqhubb

Hi, this is my first time of creating Wikipedia Article and my request was rejected.. And I don't know what I'm missing please help me out in whatever that make my article rejected Kqhubb (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kqhubb wikipedia isn't a social media site. Please also see WP:AUTOBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please is there any article that I can follow in the creation? Kqhubb (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kqhubb. I've moved your comment from the next section to this one, as I believe that was your intention.
If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles..
In order to successfully create an article about yourself, you would need to find several places where people who have no connection with you, and have not been fed information on your behalf, had decided to publish in-depth material about you. Having found these sources, you would then need to forget everything you know about yourself, and write an article summarising what these sources said. Do you see why autobiography is discouraged here? ColinFine (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


05:29, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Adarshkagineregunduraj

Submission declined Adarshkagineregunduraj (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. Please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. -- asilvering (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to know which specific reference or references was the cause of article to be declined. Adarshkagineregunduraj (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adarshkagineregunduraj it's the other way around - there aren't references that indicate the subject qualifies for an article. There are also no sources at all for the "personal life" and "education" sections. -- asilvering (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:12, 6 January 2024 review of submission by HimeshAudichya10

Please help me in creating this article as its my first article HimeshAudichya10 (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HimeshAudichya10: did you use to previously edit as PHP Poets Udaipur? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The advice I will give you is to put this aside for several months. If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Somali Editor

Abrar University is a university in Somalia that is registered to the federal government of Somalia, especially the Ministry of Education of Somalia, so can you tell me why you refused to create an official article like other universities in the country. In conclusion, I would like to request that you publish an article, and you can also search for information about Abrar University Somali Editor (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Somali Editor: this draft was already rejected earlier, so you should not have resubmitted it at all. Also, an article on this topic was deleted following an AfD only c. 6-7 months ago, and this draft was created two days after that, which clearly contravenes community consensus. If you had some evidence of notability now, you might have a case, but you didn't. That is why I rejected this draft again. Please leave it at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of the reports from Abrar University
https://www.egerton.ac.ke/university-news/somali-universities-forge-partnership-with-egerton-university-for-agricultural-advancement
https://isni.oclc.org/cbs/
https://african.land/blog/article/african-land-presents-unique-investment-opportunity-student-housing-for-abrar-university-students-in-somalia-b902
https://www.iau-hesd.net/university/abrar-university
https://abrar.edu.so/ Somali Editor (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Somali Editor: none of these contribute in the slightest towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I can use that one alone as a reference. Somali Editor (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 6 January 2024 review of submission by 109.76.238.32

Hello. Can you help me to get this published please? How many more citations are needed? Thanks! 109.76.238.32 (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Sunaram Majhi

please recheck my article Sunaram Majhi (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunaram Majhi: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. As pointed out, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content written in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, your draft is not in English. You should submit this draft on the Wikipedia of that language. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Genarogatti

Sounds too critical about the subject? Idk, might someone wanted to help to extend the article - feel free. I registered just yesterday for take to the public info regarding Bitget's fraud. I won't promote this crooks like excellent company. Might it could be more looks as a neutral, but I don't know how to perform it. Genarogatti (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Khant99

Is there any problem? If so please do tell it. Khant99 (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was told in the decline notices that you ignored and just re-submitted with no change. Social media links are rarely reliable sources but all you have in links to https://www.facebook.com/login/ anyway KylieTastic (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very new to this so there might a problem with my editing style. But I want that Wikipedia page for a person to be uploaded and accepted. Is there any problem regarding that? If so please do tell me about it and I will try to fix it. Khant99 (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh okay I understand. In that case I might have to remove the references. Khant99 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Khant99, all new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS) - See Wikipedia:Notability (people) KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it if you want. But I want it to uploaded and accepted. I will probably again the next time later. I am very new to Wikipedia and I may not understand everything. All I know is I want this Wikipedia biography page to be accepted. You can fix the mistakes and errors that you see in my draft. I don't ignore I understand. The references Facebook link is not working well. Yeah. I may try again the next time later. It's either Your choice delete or accept. Khant99 (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our choice is to follow Wikipedia's policies. Your want is not of any particular relevance. ColinFine (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my problem if you want to follow Wikipedia's policies. I don't mind actually. But what I want also matters. No matter if it's particularly relevant or not. Khant99 (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Khant99 the draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. Not a problem. Khant99 (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This disappointed me alot. Khant99 (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. Qcne (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Do you recommend trying without adding references? Khant99 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References are a requirement and the lack of them is the reason your draft was rejected? Qcne (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did add references. It is a social media Facebook refrence. I think I should try adding a website refrence instead of a Facebook refrence. I think the Facebook refrence is not working in the Wikipedia service. Never mind. If I have to try again it takes alot of time and patience. I have to write the article and add one by one all by myself. Sadly it got rejected. That's why I got a little frustrated. Hoping for the best next time hopefully. The reason I am so focused about this is to make a musician that is not featured on Wikipedia to have it and have a big name especially on Wikipedia since it's such a good global worldwide famous website. Khant99 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook and other social media websites are not appropriate references. You need to read our core policy at verification. Qcne (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only the references that are good. Other references might not as be as fulfiling and complete. It also have great sources. But you said it's not appropriate. Then I will have to find other websites. I will try again the next time. But since I got rejected I would try later since I feel like my accomplishment is pushed down. Maybe if I try again I will get rejected again. I did read your core policy at verification. I respect all of you and your opinion and choice except the rude ones. I will never give up on Wikipedia since I find it appealing and fun. Khant99 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Facebook references are the only references that you can find then I am afraid the person does not yet merit a Wikipedia article. But that's okay: there are 8 billion humans and not every human merits a Wikipedia article. Only topics that meet our special definition of notability may have Wikipedia articles written about them, and the majority of the human race and our work does not meet this criteria. Qcne (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop, Khant99.
You have been told repeatedly that what you are trying to do with this draft is contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia.
If what you want to do is contribute to this great resource, you are very welcome: you can find some suggestions of how to contribute in the "Help Out" section of the Community portal. But if what you want to do is tell the world about yourself, then please find a site that allows you to do that, not Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will stop I just want to be a helpful community member in the Wikipedia community. I Hope you understand my motivation for this. Yes I want to contribute great resources. Wikipedia is my only type and not other websites there's only Wikipedia which is a great website. I just don't understand how my draft article which I worked hard for got rejected. But I respect all of your opinions respectfully since you all are owners and bosses and have experience and knows about this. Khant99 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Khant99, if you still don't understand why your draft was rejected I really recommend starting at WP:PILLARS before making any other contributions at Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand all in a simple way. I follow the rules, guidelines and do great contributions. I think the reason it got deleted is for the references option. One guy here mentioned that the references link only forward to https://www.facebook.com/login/, and not the actual link. Khant99 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the draft was rejected was for two reasons:
- your references were incorrect. Facebook cannot be used as a reference.
- there was no indication of our special definition of notability.
Please carefully read what we mean by reliable sources and notability before contributing again. Qcne (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that Facebook is not allowed to be used as a reference. Which other websites are allowed and such as? Now I know that Facebook can't be used as a references but my references are actually incorrect and why? It is correct. Maybe I'm wrong? Khant99 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then I will not use Facebook for the reliable sources and references since you said it's not allowed and that it is incorrect. But the references I used are correct. You're just saying that Facebook is not allowed for reliable sources and reliable references. Which I understood now. My references are not poorly sourced or unsourced placed uncarefully. It's correct it's just the Facebook references and sources that are not accepted which I know just now. You're saying I should gather my reliable sources, references, contributes and facts from other websites other than Facebook. Khant99 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? The references you used were not correct because you used Facebook. This has been explained repeatedly. Why are you saying otherwise. I think we are going around in circles and I have doubts you have the competence to edit Wikipedia at the present time. Qcne (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying otherwise. Yes You are right about that I'm not saying you're wrong, it's wrong because you explained it to me I already know that you said Facebook is not a reliable source and I listened to that and I listened to why my references are wrong because its from Facebook. I understand. I will try to gather my reliable sources, references and facts and links from other websites and not Facebook. You don't have to doubt that I have the competence to edit Wikipedia because I will edit and contribute to Wikipedia at the present time, if I'm free. Khant99 (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 6 January 2024 review of submission by ASmallMapleLeaf

I am new to Wikipedia, but this was rejected after a submitted it when an IP added information. I corrected a typo in the info box, but other than that, how is this not notable? In future I would also like guidance on how to find athletes taking part in the Olympics as well, if possible. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does not have a single reference which even refers to the subject of the draft, let alone discusses it in depth.
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject, nothing more. Until there are multiple sources which discuss, specifically and in depth, "Syria at the 2924 Summer Olympics", there is literally nothing which can go into an article about the subject.
If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Ok I probably should have mentioned here, I checked the IP's source beforehand and found nothing related to Syria or any country outside a few people mentioned, I showed good faith here and believed that I had missed something in Wikipedia guidelines (I had not intended to submit this particular article until more sources popped up).
The same IP also removed my edit on Draft: Palestine at the 2024 Olympics, which was a much better source, and replaced it with this source and text. Potential WP:NOTHERE? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ASmallMapleLeaf: this draft cites a single source, which doesn't even mention Syria. Please see WP:NOTABILITY, as well as the general WP:GNG notability guideline, to better understand what we mean by notability in the Wikipedia context, and how to demonstrate it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I saw the IP (which also editted my draft on Palestine) and believed he had some sort of info I did not have ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 6 January 2024 review of submission by ASmallMapleLeaf

This article was not nominated at AFC but the edit regarding athletes participating in equitation made by an IP editor (a copyedit from a page regarding Singapore with adjustments) was reverted. Not sure how much better this article is but sourcing is much better. Posting this here for advice on whether this would be ready to go to AFC or not.

ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ASmallMapleLeaf please just submit and await a review. We don't "review in advance" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Filipoet

hello! I've had trouble getting my page approved, I can delete the section on 'awards', given that the references provided do not seem to fit with what Wikipedia requires. I am confused about the 'notoriety' section/note for rejection, as I have a similar background as my business partner, and his page is live/actually has fewer citations than mine does. It is found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indran_Amirthanayagam

Please advise, thanks! Filipoet (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "pages" here, we have articles on notable topics. Indran Amirthanayagam is VERY poorly sourced and should not be used as an example, see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Filipoet, right now this appears mostly promotional in nature, like the sort of thing you'd want on your own personal website. That's not how wikipedia articles are supposed to work. We certainly don't want quotes like "a stunner and will leave you reassessing that phone you carry everywhere in your pocket. Privacy is thrown right out the window with that phone and its location services following you around, eavesdropping, and so much more" - what on earth does this tell readers about your work? You'll want to reduce that kind of thing first. Next, make sure that you can show at least two major, in-depth reviews for at least two of your books. Add these as references somewhere in the article. We don't need quotes from them - we just need to know that they exist. This is what defines your "notability" as an author. Basically, for an author of any kind to qualify for an article, we want to see that reliable, (relatively) mainstream sources have written about their work in some depth. -- asilvering (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, that's helpful! I've read and reviewed "notability", is there a Wiki definition of what 'mainstream' is that I can refer to? Filipoet (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closest will be reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. The policy in question is at WP:RS - I used "mainstream" because I think that tends to be more helpful for editors working in an area like yours where often none of your sources will come from venues the average AfC reviewer has heard of. To explain the problem (I hope): new editors tend to look at WP:RS and come to the conclusion "none of my sources are unreliable", whereas an AfC reviewer is more likely to come to the conclusion "I cannot be certain that any of these sources are reliable". The closer your sources are to something like The New York Times or PMLA, the more likely it is that a reviewer will conclude they are reliable. The closer they are to something that looks like a personal blog, the less likely it is. -- asilvering (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Epirerecords

Please tell me what I can do better Epirerecords (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epirerecords Nothing, as your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to promote "up and coming" people, but an encyclopaedia of notable topics that meet our special definition of the word notable. Qcne (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:22, 6 January 2024 review of submission by Hwickkid

I have included articles and references in my Wikipedia submissions. Despite this, why am I still facing rejections? Hwickkid (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwickkid none of the sources are reliable as they are user-generated which includes IMBD (see WP:IMBD) so has now been rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:27, 6 January 2024 review of submission by 118.107.131.60

Hi Is it possible to make this live again by following you advice to make changes in it 118.107.131.60 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, which means that it cannot be submitted again. ‍ Relativity 22:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 7

00:56, 7 January 2024 review of submission by 121345171QWERTYUIOPA

What can I do to make this accepted 121345171QWERTYUIOPA (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:22, 7 January 2024 review of submission by Soumya6722

Could you please tell me why my draft got declined? Also I can not resubmit it 

Soumya6722 (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soumya6722 looks like you resubmitted it. Wait for someone to review Draft:Bijay Kumar Reddy. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 04:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 7 January 2024 review of submission by Laynerosen

I have made many and requested edits, but when I try to publish, I get the following error:

Something Went Wrong No stashed content found for 1164408643/b6e45fad-a078-11ee-b5ff-4cd98faf1f47

I also cannot click on the comments made by Ca, who declined the submission previously. The comments only allow me to click on the box as an "AfC submission template".

I am ready to publish and believe my submission will be approved now. Please advise!! Laynerosen (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laynerosen: that's a technical issue to do with the visual editor, and as such beyond the scope of this help desk, but you may find eg. this thread useful. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 7 January 2024 review of submission by CAPAVGAR

Hello. I removed all languages which was not allowed as per guidelines (Things that are too general, or appear to be biased or marketing, or to not look vague either). It says that my article doesn't have the correct sources. However, I have provided: 1. Interview with the person 2. Online Performances 3. Documentries and television interviews (Romania, Japan, etc) 4. Movies this person starred in (IMdb) 5. Online Blogs 6. Newspaper and magazine exerts (Which were added to online) 7. Academic articles

I do not understand what else I need to provide?

A dancer from Turkey was added onto Wikipedia with only one online news article source, and another was added with three online websites only and a YouTube video.

Yet I have provided 60 references.

Can someone help me make the page, or point to what I am doing wrong?

Thank you and I would appreciate your help in fixing whatever needs to be done.


Thank you

Christopher CAPAVGAR (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPAVGAR: did you actually read the decline notice and my comments? You are citing a large number of unacceptable sources. We need every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details to be clearly supported by reliable published sources.
Providing 60 references is not a good thing, if they are weak. A few strong references is much better. See WP:REFBOMB.
As for other articles that may exist, this is neither here nor there, as we don't assess drafts by comparing them to other articles, but rather to the applicable guidelines and policies. If you have found articles that are insufficiently referenced, you are very welcome to improve them, or if this cannot be done, to initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Yes, apologies and now I did (I received some help from a group chat here on Wikipedia).
Although I fixed the language, the issue was about using lots of websues (30% of my sources) from: Blogspot, Medium, and IMDb. I have deleted all of them, and have also gotten rid of half of the YouTube links I had before.
I see what you mean, good point. Thank your taking the time to respond. Wikipedia seems very specific in what is required, and I am not new to the world of referencing (Have produced a thesis and mini-thesis). Good that I asked, and have now resubmitted. CAPAVGAR (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CAPAVGAR.If you were starting to learn engineering, would you make your first project to build a car from scratch? If you took up a musical instrument, would you arrange a public recital as the first thing you did? No, you would practise on less demanding projects while you learnt the craft.
I would very strongly advise you that you will save yourself a great deal of frustration and disappointment if you forget about creating a new article for several months, while you gradually learn about how Wikipedia works (and most particularly about Verifiability, reliable sources, and Neutral point of view) by making improvements to some of our six million existing articles.. ColinFine (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 7 January 2024 review of submission by 195.251.132.68

This page has met the criteria for Notability (academics) 1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". It is mentioned that "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources". Sources used are peer reviewed journal publication specifically mentioning the academic and his impact, for example https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03088839.2020.1788731 . These are the most reliable sources and should be accepted by Wikipedia as reliable. Please advise on how this should be treated. 195.251.132.68 (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the authors of that paper quite say what you're claiming they do. In any case, a single paper doesn't come even close to proving significant impact on the person's discipline.
More to the point, this draft has been rejected (after no fewer than seven earlier declines, each by a different reviewer), and will therefore not be considered further. If you have some evidence that wasn't previously considered, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but that requires substantive new proof of notability, not just that you disagree with the rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the paper: " Most impactful author- Authors shape a research field with their publications.  presents the most impactful authors in the big data and AI in research the maritime domain. Dimitrios Zissis, Luca Cazzanti and Leonardo M. Millefiori are the top three authors;". this is a peer reviewed journal of high esteem in this domain, which states directly what is written in the wikipedia article. To further support this claim is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6699798/ which is highly credited in the academic domain which clearly states that he is included in 2% of academic globally. I do not see how these can be rejected and what else could be used to support this. In each review new references have been included which improved the article. In the last round it was rejected, as if none of all the previous references made sense. 195.251.132.69 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers are free to decline drafts on any valid basis. That said, this has been declined repeatedly for lack of notability and promotional tone, as well as questionable referencing, all of which issues still persist.
Incidentally, I am assuming you are the subject? In which case, please read also our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO, if this hasn't been pointed out to you before. There you will find a number of reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place.
At any rate, as I said already, if you wish to dispute the rejection, you must make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed wrong, he is my professor. It is really interesting though that wikipedia does not accepted peer reviewed academic papers as credible sources. Thanks for the help. 195.251.132.68 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. My bad. In that case, please see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a conflict of interest. This is not a paid advocacy or article about family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationship. As I stated he is my professor and thus I believe he should be covered by wikipedia as an academic/scholar. As a student in one of his classes, I can evaluate him independently. 195.251.132.68 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you know Wikipedia policies better than I do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A humiliating defeat for sure. Blueskiesdry (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having to re-evaluate all my major life choices. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 7 January 2024 review of submission by Onetozeros

can you tell me how can i improve the article further? Onetozeros (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No improvement is possible, the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

04:40, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Hwickkid

Will I have the opportunity for a new submission when I acquire more reliable sources? Hwickkid (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hwickkid: if I'm honest, I don't see much chance of this being accepted, especially considering the lack of progress through the last several reviews. This draft remains very far from an acceptable state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 8 January 2024 review of submission by 134.41.167.171

I may have made a mistake when submitting this article. Mary Chilvers is a curling athlete with multiple national appearances. Most other curling athlete articles have limited references, but this article keeps being rejected. When I set this article up at first, I was new to wikipedia and may have selected the wrong category "notable people" or something like that.

Can you help me reclassify this article so that its about the athlete, and not a "famous person in society". 134.41.167.171 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had posted this before logging in. I had submitted this question. FenelonCurls (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is a difference between "declined" and "rejected"; Rejected means that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.,
Not too long ago, the notability criteria for athletes was made less strict in that athletes need to meet the same definition of a notable person that any other person must meet- instead of meeting specific criteria(such as appearances in the Olympics or national championships). WP:NSPORT is now just a guide as to what things might make a person notable. This means that there are likely many inapprorpiate articles that no longer(or never did) meet the notability criteria and have simply not been addressed yet. This can't justify the addition of more inappropriate content, see other stuff exists. Note that "famous" is not the same thing as "notable"- someone can be famous but not notable, and notable but not famous. What matters is the coverage in independent reliable sources.
As noted, the main problem you have is that none of the sources you offer have significant coverage of Chilvers. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clarification. I was wondering why all other articles had simply links to showing when they played an event" more than what was provided in my references. FenelonCurls (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're interested- and you don't need to be, just saying- you can help us address inappropriate articles by identifying them and their issues. This can be done via Page Curation or tools available via Twinkle. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 8 January 2024 review of submission by 45.250.229.176

Raju Ahmed is a Bangladeshi film director who gained popularity by bringing Bangladeshi film actress Achol into his first film. Anchal has a Wikipedia page named after it. 45.250.229.176 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Did you have a question in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Why is Raju Ahmed page not being accepted? 45.250.229.176 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing [1]https://www.amarsangbad.com/print-entertainment/news-212293#:~:text=%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%82%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%B2%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%81%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A6%20%E0%A6%AA%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A4%20%E2%80%98%E0%A6%AD%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2%E2%80%99%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A7%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AC%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%E0%A7%9F%20%E0%A6%A4%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%85%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B7%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%95%20%E0%A6%B9%E0%A7%9F%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%A5%E0%A6%AE%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%A8%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%BE%20%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%87%20%E0%A6%A6%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B6%E0%A6%95%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%20%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%A8%20%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%9F%20%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A7%9F%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%9B%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A8%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%B2%E0%A5%A4
[2]https://www.ajkerpatrika.com/30115/%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%9A%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E2%80%98%E0%A6%95%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%9F%E2%80%99-%E0%A6%8F%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%82-%E0%A6%AA%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0-%E0%A6%97%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AA#:~:text=%E0%A7%A8%E0%A7%A6%E0%A7%A7%E0%A7%A7%20%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%B2%E0%A7%87%20%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%81%20%E0%A6%86%E0%A6%B9%E0%A6%AE%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%A6%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%20%E2%80%98%E0%A6%AD%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%B2%E2%80%99 45.250.229.176 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the reason given in the decline notice, specifically the grey box inside the large pink one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I will submit the news... 45.250.229.176 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a standalone article, the subject must meet either WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG criteria. Since he hasn't directed any notable films, he doesn't fulfill NDIRECTOR. Therefore, your draft must satisfy GNG, necessitating significant coverage from reliable, independent secondary sources. Currently, I don't see any GNG-worthy sources in your draft, so please add at least three reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer I am adding news 45.250.229.176 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News" may or may not be enough. Often (particularly in the entertainment field) a news story simply mentions somebody's name (not significant coverage) or is obviously just a regurgitated press release (not independent). You need to verify the each of your proposed sources on its own meets the three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine Review Now I am editing some articles with news. 45.250.229.176 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not demand reviews, we are volunteers. Reviews may take up to three weeks. Qcne (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi

I have some problem to modify the text.The text was defined as an "advertisment" which accordin^g to me was plain simple text without any exagerated quality that would made it as an advertisment. I took example of some other eârtist whos text were far more elitist or missing humility. Could someone help me to understand were did I make advertisment? Thank you for your help. I really like to have Jean-Pierre part of your beutiful encyclopedia. Jpgroppi (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgroppi: what makes it promotional is that this is you telling the world about yourself, rather than summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said. See WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jpgroppi Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 8 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:19B:683:7CE0:31C4:EC61:43B:2292

How do I make this more notable? 2601:19B:683:7CE0:31C4:EC61:43B:2292 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You can't "make it notable"- it either is or it isn't. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Wikipedia is not for telling about something just created. This game must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, coverage that can be summarized in an article, showing how this game is notable. The draft was rejected because that seems unlikely to occur, if something fundamentally changes here, you must first appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Liv.unohchr

Hi there, would it be possible to have a review from someone before submitting the page again? Thank you in advance. Liv.unohchr (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liv.unohchr: we don't provide on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel that you've addressed the previous decline reasons, you can resubmit, and someone will assess it in due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft reads like a school essay and encyclopaedia articles NEVER ask questions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Liv.unohchr (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Olivia Harry

I wish to know the best tag to use on the draft article. The article is still more of developing subject. Olivia Harry (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m unsure what the question you’re asking is. The submission was declined because there were not enough in-depth sources to show that the subject was notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Włodzimierz Juśkiewicz

I wanted to acknowledge the contribution of one of the journals. There are many entries in Wiki about various journal titles with different impact on science. Not all journals are Nature :) The one I added belongs to the group of quite good ones. For example, in the field of Social Sciences - Cultural Studies it is in the Q1 group (top 10%), which means that it is among the best, in other fields it is in Q2. There are no books or articles written about journals, their quality is proven by independent indicators and coefficients. It is external databases (Web of Science, SCOPUS, Copernicus, etc.) that evaluate journals. You can verify important information there. Such links have been added to the entry - I tried to maintain the standard of other journals entries. Despite this, the entry was rejected. Can you point out a difference that I probably didn't notice, that is not present in my entry suggestion and in others that already appear on the Wiki? Thank you and best regards Włodzimierz Juśkiewicz (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists; the existence of other articles that may themselves be problematic has no bearing on your draft. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Włodzimierz Juśkiewicz, please also read Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Although this is an essay and not a formal policy or guideline, it will give you some insight into the thinking of editors who work on articles about academic journals. Cullen328 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Jdbtwo

I do not understand why my article submission doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. The WKdm ( and WK class of algorithms ) is one of the two primary types of virtual compression algorithms, developed circa 1999 or 1997.

As for notability in real-world implementations, Apple has included WKdm virtual memory compression in its OS since OSX 10.9 Mavericks ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_memory_compression#cite_note-Arstechnica-29 ) .

Wikipedia is full of hundreds of articles which describe algorithms that are used in just one particular operating system ( mainly Linux ) -- I don't understand why my submission isn't notable at least in this regard.

I know it's only mentioned, in detail, in two or three journal articles, but it's been referenced much more in the open source XNU mailing lists, similar to various Linux process scheduling algorithms, which have Wikipedia articles. Jdbtwo (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The submission was declined because the sources did not sufficiently demonstrate notability. There are not enough secondary sources from reliable media publications to demonstrate the subject is notable enough to warrant an article. Eternal Shadow Talk 21:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What other articles do is not relevant, see other stuff exists. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. 331dot (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 8 January 2024 review of submission by Tedleisenring

this is the message I got from my editor for my latest article on George H Rothacker: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. I can't find more inline citations. Should I delete some of the content that may not have what they are looking for in references? what else can I do to get it published. it is all facts and good information Tedleisenring (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand; you need a citation for every substantive piece of information in an article about a living person, see WP:BLP. Those citations need to be placed next to the information being cited. See referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tedleisenring, consider the first two paragraphs of the "Early life" section, which are entirely unreferenced. How is the reader supposed to verify the accuracy of that content? Verifiability is a core content policy. The same issue applies to vast swathes of unreferenced content throughout the draft. Cullen328 (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 8 January 2024 review of submission by JonJaySon

Hi I've just had an article accepted which is great. I've sourced two photos from the artist the article is about, both are referred to in the article. I've placed them in WIki Commons, but have no idea how to add them to the page. Can someone help with an idiots' guide? I'm from the typewriter era... Thank you, Jon JonJaySon (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JonJaySon: this isn't any longer an AfC matter, now that the article has been published. In any case, you seem to have managed to add one image, so I'm assuming you figured it out; now you can just repeat that process.
Having said which, I notice that you said when you uploaded these images that you've done so with the artist's permission. We need to see evidence that the artist has really released the image into the public domain. I would suggest that you read Commons:Licensing, if you haven't yet done so, and contact the relevant Commons help desk for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:06, 8 January 2024 review of submission by NickystheThicky

why was thus declined NickystheThicky (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NickystheThicky: because it was inappropriate, which is also why it has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

02:37, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Pnianatashakanon

Hello,I do wikipedia page for the first time. I need to post this wiki page,cause of copyright infringement. When you search in google for “empirey” you can see another band,and the most reason is that empirey’s song “21/6-76” will be added to Empyray( Armenian group) and it’s copyright infringement , but there is no way to prove this other than a Wikipedia page. I indicated the official Spotify of the empirey group, where there is a biography. I don't understand where the mistake is. Pnianatashakanon (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User talk:Pnianatashakanon § Your submission at Articles for creation: Empirey (January 9) 3 for my existing reply to this question. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:13, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Ingenuityscan

I cannot find more reliable reference about the article and I also feel that it is notable topic.please help me to improve the article quality and publish the article Ingenuityscan (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Dr.nassiri

I wrote a draft for article about : 'Irys Medical Clinic' but the reviewer found it not neutral. Could you please help me with it? Dr.nassiri (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.nassiri: this is one of the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself or your business, because it can be very difficult to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner. One way around this is to forget what you know about the subject, and what you want to say, and instead base your draft purely on what independent secondary sources have said about it. Of course, if you cannot find such sources, which your draft suggests could well be a problem, then you won't be able to lean on them. But then, that also means that the subject isn't notable, and you cannot therefore publish an article on it in any case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1194503029"