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 AinaSyazzween (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 12 January 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:AJobThing). 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 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]
nope HimeshAudichya10 (talk) 13:02, 11 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]
Just a moment,maybe I understand now why I have these problems. I am not writing a biography of myself. I am just writing a biography of an artist Jean-Pierre Groppi that I like to have on the Wikipedia as other artist are.I have a few painting of this artist and like to have some reference of the artist for others tat might know him as well. Jean-Pierre left some souvenir but not on the internet or very few. I made the login and create the jpgroppi to avoid to use my personal name.If this creates confusion or ambiguity I can make a new account from scratch. Will this help?
Thank you for your answer Jpgroppi (talk) 14:14, 9 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]
Please read what Wikipedia means by notabilitym, Jdbtwo - it's is not fame, or importance, or influence, or popularity, or wideness of use. It is essentially the question "is there enough independent, reliably published information about the subject to base an article on?" (remembering that 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) 10:33, 9 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]
Thank you for the heads up, I assumed things would be done on trust, but I guess that is very naive. I'll read the commons page and then contact the help desk. I stumbled on how to load the photo, will leave it at that for now, although Romney did release one other image (of the work that got her into so much trouble).
Also, I noticed the page is only available through Wikidata, which I'd not heard of. Is that an interim step prior to Google indexing the page, or a lesser version of Wikipedia for less known people? Once you open the data page and scroll down there are links to Pedia and Commons which do seem to work ok.
Anyway, thank you for responding and for your advice, which I'll follow now.
Jon JonJaySon (talk) 23:19, 10 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]
Hello, Pnianatashakanon: I don't understand where the mistake is. That is exactly why I always advise new editors not to even try to create a new article before they have spent a few months learning how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. ColinFine (talk) 10:39, 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]

@Ingenuityscan: hospitals are only notable if they satisfy the WP:ORG notability standard. This requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If you cannot find such sources, then that suggests this hospital isn't, in fact, notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for guidance Ingenuityscan (talk) 10:02, 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]

10:42, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Bonnychai

there is a need to split the article from Karen Mok 

Bonnychai (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonnychai: that is something that should be first discussed at Talk:Karen Mok, per WP:SPLITTING.
Other than that, do you have a question you would like to ask related to the drafting process? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Journalist0071

Could you please help review this article? It's my second article on Wikipedia - I would appreciate it :) Journalist0071 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Journalist0071: you have only just submitted it, please be patient; as it says on the top of the draft, reviews can take 2-3 weeks, as we have 900+ other drafts also awaiting review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Emi Ciprian

Hi there,

I'd like some advice to rewrite the article so it will comply with Wikipedia's policy. As I failed for a number of times to achieve this I am asking for your help. Thank you! Emi Ciprian (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emi Ciprian: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. If you wish to rewrite it entirely, that is your call, but as a paid editor the onus is very much on you to understand Wikipedia's policies and publication requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 9 January 2024 review of submission by 2603:9000:5902:E056:91B7:1891:E40D:8BFB

Why was this rejected 2603:9000:5902:E056:91B7:1891:E40D:8BFB (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no indication that the subject is notable. Wikipedia is not a social media or blogging platform where anyone can write what they want. We are an encyclopaedia, and only publish articles that meet our notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 9 January 2024 review of submission by 47.11.206.1

Wikipedia is a useful source of background information that Pepole or students often use in the early stages of research.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. So here information is available. But this article not here. This is season. 47.11.206.1 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 9 January 2024 review of submission by 47.11.206.1

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by volunteers to help people gain useful knowledge.

The reason for writing this article is that this post is not on Wikipedia. No such Article. 47.11.206.1 (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not an article, this was a random collection of unconnected content and general nonsense, presumably only put together so that you can add a spam link to it. And after it was deleted, you went ahead and recreated it. Leave it at that, please, or you will be prevented from editing, for contravening Wikipedia's terms of use. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Nuashall123

Is there any ways to add external link without flagging a spam? I dont know how to use

. If I understand correctly, then I can add external links for promotion? Nuashall123 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuashall123 Absolutely not. Wikipedia prohibits all forms of promotion, and must not be used as a way to promote topics. Your account will be blocked if you use Wikipedia solely to promote. Qcne (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Oysterperpetual36

I wonder whether the changes I made, upon the Editor's suggestion, are sufficient to warrant publication or whether I should change something more. Oysterperpetual36 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oysterperpetual36: the short answer is, the draft has been resubmitted so sooner or alter a reviewer will run the ruler over it, and you will receive feedback (or else it will be accepted without further ado).
The longer answer is, the sources aren't sufficient to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, therefore you're left with WP:NACADEMIC. If you haven't yet done so, you need to look at that and decide which of the criteria 1-8 you think this person most likely meets, and make sure that you include evidence to support that. It's also not a bad idea to spell out this, so that the reviewer can specifically assess the draft against that particular criterion. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Thanks so much for the swift reply! Oysterperpetual36 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:35, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Nuashall123

Hi,

I am new to Wikipedia and didn't know that you don't tolerate spam. I wonder if there is still any chance of publishing the article? Can you tell me how to add {{Advert|date=January 2024}}? Thanks! Nuashall123 (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Qcne (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Thevikastanwar

How Can I make this biographyMore Visible Thevikastanwar (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thevikastanwar: you cannot, because this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 9 January 2024 review of submission by De Catamon

I have tried severally to upload this page but it's not working. Right now i don't have any idea on what to do or how to make this page live. De Catamon (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:De Catamon was rejected, the draft has zero sources and zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you concentrate on your music career and forget about Wikipedia; if you ever merit an article according to the definition of a notable musician, someone will eventually write it. You shouldn't write it yourself, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:38, 9 January 2024 review of submission by Ceolarisama

HiCeolarisama (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

05:34, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Ankwasa Harlord

Hello Blessings for the continued zeal and passion to document important information all over the world, my draft (Draft: Ankwasa_Harlord) has been rejected and I here to seek help from any editor willing to write this on my behalf... I will be more than grateful... Thanks Ankwasa Harlord (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankwasa Harlord: firstly, your draft was only declined, not rejected; those two mean different things.
Secondly, you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO.
Thirdly, and in direct answer to your question, we don't get involved in editing here at the help desk; the onus is very much on you to create your own drafts. If you have specific questions, you may ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification 😊 blessed day Ankwasa Harlord (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Jung808

Dear All,

How can I get support to translate an existing specific official page from Azerbaijani to English? Thank you for your time and recommendations. 

Jung808 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Answered below) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Zolakrystie

I recently submitted a page draft which got reject, reason stating I "should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed".

However, I have used third party independent sources throughout the citations for this page and kept it as factual as possible. Throughout the whole page, i only referenced their company website once, to identify the list of products they had. I also read the notability terms and don't understand which condition was breached.

Could someone look into this and provide further explanation on how to revise the article? Zolakrystie (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zolakrystie: "materials produced by the creator of the subject" isn't limited to just the company's website; many of the other sources you cite also originate with the company, even if they are hosted on third party sites.
This draft was declined (not 'rejected') as promotional. The decline message is standard boilerplate for that particular decline reason, not written uniquely for your draft. You need to look at the overall picture, and dial down the promotionality considerably. One effective way of doing this is to only summarise what independent secondary sources have said about the subject, rather than writing what you want to say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Jung808

Dear All,

I need this page to be translated: https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvin_Pa%C5%9Fayev Could you guide me, please how should I proceed? Thank you 

Jung808 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jung808: this question would be better asked at the Teahouse or the Help desk, but since you're here, take a look at WP:HOWTRANS where you should find pretty much everything you need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate it. Jung808 (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Koukkukasi88

Hi, I'm trying to translate a Finnish Wikipedia page DL Bunuel (https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/DJ_Bunuel) into English, but can't seem to manage. The Finnish page has been approved. I'm the author of that one as well. For some reason I can't seem to find a way to either translate an article from Finnish to English nor create a new, English page for the subject and the connect these two. Please help, Koukkukasi88 (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Koukkukasi88: as I've already stated in my review comments, I believe the subject is notable, and in that sense you're pretty close to this being accepted. You need to improve the sources, however, as some of them are completely inappropriate for referencing articles on living people (WP:BLP) especially.
Note that the Finnish and English Wikipedias are entirely separate projects with their own policies and requirements. Just because this has been accepted into fiwiki says nothing about its prospects here on enwiki. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Please don't create multiple drafts on the same subject, like you've just done with Draft:DJ Bunuel. Improve the existing draft instead. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Rmvika

Please advice on how to improve article? 

Rmvika (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmvika: you cannot, as this draft has now been rejected for complete lack of any proof of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:32, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6

2409:40E1:1F:102C:10E3:69FF:FE53:A0E6 (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you already, this will not be accepted. You're only getting your IP addresses blocked one by one. Unless that's what you're after, I suggest you stop now and find a more worthwhile pursuit (which shouldn't be too difficult). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop generating utterly garbage ChatGPT justifications as to why this should not be immediately deleted. Qcne (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Lektor2002

Kleros Submission Declined - questions as to why Greetings, I recently submitted an article to Wikipedia that has been outright declined for reasons of not having adequate references. I disagree, since some of the highest authorities on the topics of online dispute resolution and alternative dispute resolution have spoken extremely highly of this experimental technology.

Draft:Kleros

Could you tell me what specifically is lacking here?

Thank you very much in advance. Lektor2002 (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lektor2002: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, not for inadequate references.
To save us sifting through 25 sources, perhaps you could point out the 3-5 that are strongest in terms of meeting the WP:GNG notability standard, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, allow me to expound on this from a notability standpoint.
-"On 28 May 2021, for the first time in blockchain arbitration history, Mexican courts enforced an arbitral award relying on a blockchain arbitration protocol (“Blockchain Arbitral Award”), as explored in the report found here (“Carrera Report”) (see the Appendix for the Blockchain Arbitral Award, which is in Spanish). "
- Maxime Chevalier on Kluwer Arbitration Blog, one of the key solutions for international arbitration, seen here: https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2022/03/04/arbitration-tech-toolbox-is-a-mexican-court-decision-the-first-stone-to-bridging-the-blockchain-arbitral-order-with-national-legal-orders/
-Kleros design has also been analyzed in depth by Janet Martinez, one of the leading experts in the field of alternative dispute resolution, who is also the Former Director, Gould Alternative Dispute Resolution Research Initiative in her paper "Designing Online Dispute Resolution" that can be found here: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=jdr. You will notice that Kleros design is compared to eBay's dispute resolution, as well as state based dispute resolution mechanisms.
-Proof of Humanity, one of the first blockchain based decentralized digital identity platforms ever, created by Kleros has been covered by Time Magazine: https://time.com/6142810/proof-of-humanity/
-Furthermore, from an academic standpoint, Kleros has been the topic of in depth research by Amy Schmitz (again, a leader in the field of dispute resolution research and Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed Professor of Law at the University of Missouri School of Law) and Colin Rule (creator of eBay's dispute resolution system). Their research can be found here: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1726&context=facpubs
-Kleros is making such waves in the ODR space that it was even featured in the UNCTAD Report directed at consumer protection agencies as a key case study in the blockchain field: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tcsditcinf2023d5_en.pdf
Let me know if more sources are needed to point this out, Google Scholar and other platforms have many different academic sources to derive information about Kleros from. Lektor2002 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you associated with Kleros in some way? Also note that due to past disruption, there are special rules when editing about blockchain or crypto, I will post these on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not associated with Kleros in any official capacity, I'm working in mediation and Kleros is one of the projects that I've been doing deep dives on and following for a couple of years already.
If you can, please let me know what are these special rules, given that as far as I see it as an academic, there should be no barriers for Kleros to be part of Wikipedia. Lektor2002 (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula

where can I copy the link for my article? 

Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdul Jamie Q. Datudacula, You cannot do anything with this draft as it has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion under CSD U5 criteria because an reviewer considered it a misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia is not a blog site where you can post anything. It is a free encyclopedia that accepts quality content on notable subjects. I recommend reading WP:Five pillars and WP:What Wikipedia is not for a better understanding. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Damarsa

My submission on February 23rd 2023 was declined saying "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However the sources I mention are reliable and verifiable. I would like to know exactly what resources are being referred as not adequately supported. Damarsa (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Damarsa: much (most?) of the content is unreferenced. In articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. In other words, it's not so much a problem with the sources not being reliable (although LinkedIn certainly isn't, as it's user-generated), but rather with sources not being cited frequently enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Damarsa. The entire purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to allow a reader (anywhere, any time) to verify the information it is supporting. If the reference has not been reliably published (eg on LinkedIn) it does not serve this purpose, as people can say anything about themselves on LinkedIn (similarly other social media, and user-generated sites like iMDB and, yes, Wikipedia. I'm not saying that Sloboda is not accurate on her LinkedIn account; I'm saying that there is no way that a reader can know whether or not to trust it).
A citation to a book, without a page (or at least a chapter), is pretty useless: are you expecting the reader to read the whole book to look for where the information ? In any case, a book edited by the subject of the article is a weak source: with the best of wills, an involved editor is likely to choose writers, texts, and forms of expression, that favour themselves and their version of events.
A short biography published by his employer is another very weak source: it is likely that the text was written by him or his close colleagues - again, not independent. It also fails to verify the information it immediately follows (it nowhere says that he has held that post since 2002).
I won't go on. But your job in writing a draft about Hunt is first to find several sources each of which is all three of reliably published, wholly independent of Hunt and his associates and institutions, and contains significant coverage of Hunt. Then, forget anything you may know about Hunt, and write an article based solely on what those independent sources say. If that gives you a viable article, then you can add a small amount of uncontroversial factual information from non-indpendent sources - things like dates and locations. But if any substantial matter - a job, a responsibility, an event - is not mentioned in any independent source, it's not clear that it belongs in the article. ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 103.176.185.160

how can i create this.kindly guide 103.176.185.160 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, as this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 10 January 2024 review of submission by 161.77.45.162

Why isn't this suitable? 161.77.45.162 (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a number of reasons:
  • We only publish articles on subjects which are considered notable, and there is nothing to suggest this is.
  • Everything has to be backed up by reliable published sources, especially in articles on living people, but nothing in this draft is.
  • If this is about you, then per WP:AUTOBIO, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in any case.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Trainrobber66

I don't know if the article now has enough sufficient data to have an article. Can you review it and see what more I can add to this? Trainrobber66 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Deepfriedokra, the rejecting reviewer. This shop made a bit of a brief dent in mainstream media in the UK, so I'm 50/50 on the notability. Qcne (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And may well be notable. Social media posts are not useful, generally. Alas, I am not the rejecter. Just the commenter.. Ah, news sources added... Maybe now. Maybe just locally notable? @KylieTastic: done the deed. 50/50? Is 50/50 likelihood of survival at WP:AFD still the threshold? Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or was that 50% of 50%? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I don't know why I thought you were the rejector...! Hallucination!? Qcne (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now stupid TikTok trends that fill in slow news days are "50/50 on the notability" - Please stop the world I want to get off!! I came to work on an online encyclopedia to find some value in life and the human endeavour, but this is where we are... I turned the reject into a decline.... now where's that drink? KylieTastic (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:41, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Allo002

I simply cannot find reliable sources because such research may never been documented... Please find such reliable sources... Allo002 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry, @Allo002. But if there are no reliable sources then there can be no article. It's up to you as the editor to find reliable sources, but it simply might be this topic has not been documented. Once it becomes more documented, maybe you could try again. Qcne (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Thinkelise

Hi! I suspected the reason for the first submission's rejection was due to insufficiently "reliable" or "independent" qualities of the reference sources. Quite a few of the references do show "significant" coverage as they are exclusively about the subject. This article is about a budding talent so when the BBC later published an interview about them, I added the BBC reference.

I would appreciate any guidance around what types of content will help this article pass review. Thank you. Thinkelise (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Budding talent", "rising", and "up and coming" are all terms that usually indicate a topic does not yet merit an article. A topic must have already arrived and be noticed in order to receive the significant coverage needed to sustain an article. Interviews are not independent sources and do not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it - thanks. I'll wait until there's more press coverage on F1 Academy. Thinkelise (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:15, 10 January 2024 review of submission by Seihlanunez22

I was wondering what citations I am missing to make the article better. Seihlanunez22 (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph has no citations. Why should a reader believe it? (Note that I'm not impugning your veracity: Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. Suppose this draft were accepted. Next month somebody comes along and changes that paragraph - maybe because they have newer information, or they misunderstood something, or maybe they were vandalising: now how can a reader tell that the information is correct?)
The next paragraph has two citations: one to a publisher's page that doesn't mention him anywhere. The other to an actual journal, that actually mentions him, in the list of members of the editorial board. Congratulations: we have actually got to a piece of information that is verified by a source. Of course, since it is only a listing, we have no way of evaluating whether or not this is of any importance or significance.
Do you begin to see the problem? Please have a look at WP:BACKWARDS and at WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 11

02:10, 11 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:85:C581:A30:7035:8940:89BA:B6E0

Hi folks, I'm trying to figure out how to get better sources for this article but am having trouble. The company produces hundreds of board games, multiple award winning stuff, but all of the sources I have are lower quality than I need. The one good source I have doesn't seem to exist on the internet (a Tampa Tribune article from May 8, 2001), and the rest are bloggers or boardgamegeek.com or the like. How should I proceed on this? 2601:85:C581:A30:7035:8940:89BA:B6E0 (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia articles should be written by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said, if there are no sources, then there is nothing to summarise, and no article can be created. Worth also noting that having created hundreds of products does not necessarily make a company notable, nor does their products having won awards, so it is possible that this company simply does not justify an article at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:12, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Vedicandhra

I edited all the references and consolidated the notability of the article as per the suggestions of the reviewer and a live helper from the wikipedia channel. Thank you for your time and help!! Vedicandhra (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Rmvika

How to publish my article ? Rmvika (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmvika: you cannot, as this draft has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Shaon609

It seems like you're requesting assistance with modifying content related to a person and their websites for a Wikipedia page. However, I cannot directly access or modify Wikipedia content. If you have specific information or details you would like to share, I can help you draft a neutral and non-promotional version suitable for a Wikipedia article. Please provide more information about the person, their achievements, and any notable contributions or events related to them, and I'll do my best to assist you. Shaon609 (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what? ltbdl (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what the bot told you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shaon609 This is not the forum to offer or advertise your editing services. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's, rather hilariously, a boilerplate response from ChatGPT or another LLM chatbot. Qcne (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These things happen... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 11 January 2024 review of submission by 62.228.125.221

Submission declined because: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes.

Hi, could you please help, because I am in stuck. It’s not clear from the manual what the mistake is. At first glance, the links are correctly designed, and their layout coincides with many current Wikipedia articles.

Could you please provide more details and I will update asap. 62.228.125.221 (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on living people (see WP:BLP) have strict referencing requirements. Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Currently this draft is mostly unreferenced. For example, which source provides the person's DOB, or the recognition listed in the 'Awards' section? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Anchorteam

Hi, I would like to add a company description to my draft (the rectangle in the upper right on Wikipedia) but I can not find the possibility to add the description. Could you help me? Thanks in advance! Anchorteam (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anchorteam: do you mean the infobox, such as the one in eg. IBM? This is created using {{Infobox company}}.
That said, if I were you I would solely focus on establishing the notability of this subject, which is the biggest hurdle to overcome for any draft, and also where previous attempts have fallen. Infoboxes and other proverbial bells & whistles can come later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
thank you very much for your answer! That is exactly what i meant. Alright, thanks for the hint - then I will focus on creating notability first.
Thank you Anchorteam (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that I have used this far are good for creating notability, right? Anchorteam (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anchorteam: I wouldn't say so, no. They seem to be based on some publicity materials, ie. not independent.
BTW, what is your relationship with this subject, and/or the organisations associated with it? Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID, and make the necessary disclosures before editing further. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my understanding: How are other companies creating their Wiki sites as they do not have independent sources as well? Anchorteam (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anchorteam: there are plenty of independent sources on all sorts of companies. In any case, companies don't create their Wikipedia articles, individual editors do. And if they are writing about a company that they are employed by or otherwise have an external relationship with, they need to disclose this.
Apropos of which, I repeat my earlier question: what is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I know, however for companies like Einhell or IBM, that are on Wikipedia, are not really independet sources given on he sites - so how come that there is no problem publishing their sites?
I am using their battery system for all of my projects at home and really like the concept they are following as I can use their battery for most of my products I own Anchorteam (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anchorteam: there are no 'sites' in Wikipedia, there are encyclopaedia articles on subjects which are deemed notable.
The IBM article cites plenty of independent sources. Entire books have been written on it. There is nothing to indicate that anyone from IBM wrote that article, and in any case it was created over 20 years ago when publishing requirements were different from what they are today. I haven't checked the Einhell article, but if you believe it or any other article doesn't demonstrate notability, you're more than welcome to improve it, or if this cannot be done, to instigate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Einhell article could use some work, it looks like the article in German is more extensive, and I've added Template:Expand German to it. I'm pretty sure that it would survive a proposed deletion though.Naraht (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm at about the right level of indent here. I'd say that this is something that notability can be found. References don't need to be in English, but company websites and press releases don't show notability, but there are some relatively neutral articles out there. There are wikipedia users that will put the bells and whistles (or at least explain how) for an article that has shown notability and been published to mainspace, If submitted as of the last time I looked at it, I'd decline it, but definitely *not* reject this. Keep going with adding independent refs for notability and I think you are on the right path.Naraht (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Vedicandhra

I was wondering if the edits made now qualified this as an article Vedicandhra (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedicandhra: you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting review; sooner or later, a reviewer will pick it up and give you their assessment. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:46, 11 January 2024 review of submission by Jonathan Urey

Hi, I would like to insert a infobox - but I can't seem to insert a Dutch language infobox only an English language one. What do I need to do to change this?

Thank you,

J. Jonathan Urey (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you creating a Dutch-language draft in English Wikipedia? You should be working in Dutch Wikipedia. There are no facilities that I am aware of for moving a page between different Wikipedias: you'll need to copy (the source) into a page on nl-wiki.
As for the infobox: naturally, en-wiki does not contain infoboxes in other languages. You'll want to use nl:Sjabloon:Infobox bedrijf, but of course that is only available in Dutch Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:55, 11 January 2024 review of submission by 73.169.188.142

I need a mentor to assist me in drafting a musician page that will be accepted for publication 

73.169.188.142 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I doubt that any experienced editor will be willing to spend any time on this draft (which has been rejected) unless you can show that sufficient sources exist to establish that Tecu meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Remember that each of the sources you offer must meet all the conditions in WP:42; and that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:03, 12 January 2024 review of submission by AinaSyazzween

Why does my article keep being rejected? AinaSyazzween (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1195037939"