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 企業チェック (talk | contribs) at 01:31, 17 January 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:JFE_Shoji_Electronics_Corporation). 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 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]
(User indeffed as a sock, draft deleted.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 12 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]


January 12

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]

read the decline notices. ltbdl (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:52, 12 January 2024 review of submission by ENew Media

First time writer. ENew Media (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ENew Media: okay, that's not a question, though – did you have one in mind?
Before you ask, this draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:43, 12 January 2024 review of submission by Risingjournalist

Which source shall I provide in reference so that it can be accepted? I have certificate from NotionPress, Podcasts featurings, Books Published by Ink Of Knowledge, Genius Words, and Self-Published books, also, Author Profiles on Goodreads, LibraryThing, and many more. All of the links have been already provided, what more shall I provide? Or which trusted source shall I put in? Risingjournalist (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Risingjournalist: I don't see anything in the draft that would suggest the subject is notable. If you can find sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, then that could demonstrate notability, but a quick scan through the ones currently cited suggests they fall well short of that.
Also, if you are the person in question, please see WP:AUTOBIO for some of the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:42 for an explanation of the kind of sources required. They need to be all three of reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subejct. Not one of the things you have mentioned above meets these criteria. ColinFine (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:22, 12 January 2024 review of submission by JHCOOOOO

Need help getting draft approved. JHCOOOOO (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JHCOOOOO: you need to show that this business is notable, as detailed in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

For Review of Draft Page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mira-Bhayander,_Vasai-Virar_Police#

i want to get review for the Draft Page - Draft:Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar Police#

And If it is not yet suitable to get published then please tell me how this page (compare the pages Below, with Above) are published with low information and low references and citations -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagpur_Police

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pune_Police

Pratik.S2005 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: you get a review when you resubmit your draft; we don't provide on-demand reviews or pre-reviews here at the help desk.
We also don't compare drafts to existing articles, we compare them to the currently applicable guidelines and policies. If you're unhappy with those two articles, you're welcome to improve them, or if they cannot be improved, to initiate deletion proceedings. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sure Pratik.S2005 (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have resubmitted the Draft for a Review, please do share the feedback Pratik.S2005 (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In due course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:28:29, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Yotrages

I created the page with good and reliable sources, and I need a review. Yotrages (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yotrages: if you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Rema discography, then no, that isn't pending a review, since you haven't yet submitted it. You need to click on that blue button to submit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you, I just submitted it now, I think I already submitted. I'm still waiting for the review. Yotrages (talk) 9:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

08:59, 13 January 2024 review of submission by DVINTHEHOUSEMAN

My draft was rejected because there weren't enough secondary sources. Most of the sources cited comes from other entities than Motorola or the U.S. Patent Office. The only reliable secondary sources I could find, I listed, and those secondary sources cover a lot of the article, even if the citation list looks fairly bare for its length. Since this isn't a particularly well covered topic (long since obsolete two way radio encryption products) and is quite obscure today, some information is contained in old forum posts as there is no other source for information other than "such and such product exists". I'm unsure on how to write a complete article on this topic without also including information from unpublished or unreliable sources since there isn't enough interest in the topic to generate a published, reliable source about the covered material.

I'm not sure what to do with this article. DVINTHEHOUSEMAN (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DVINTHEHOUSEMAN: this draft was only declined, not rejected; reject means that you cannot resubmit it, decline only means it isn't yet ready to be accepted, and you should work on it further and resubmit at a later time.
That said, if you cannot find sufficient sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable, then it may not be possible to accept this at all. Wikipedia articles only summarise what reliable and independent secondary sources have previously published, and from that it follows that if no such sources exist, then it isn't possible to summarise them to create an article.
Note that sources do not need to be online, and they do not need to be in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Razrsharpest

I am a new contributor trying to create an article about a video game developer. I want to know if it is ok to write about the investments received by the developer or would it be considered promotion. Razrsharpest (talk) 13:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Razrsharpest: no, I wouldn't say that mentioning investment raised is promotion, per se, but it is pretty useless, both in the sense of not really providing any encyclopaedic value, and also in that it's routine business reporting which doesn't contribute anything towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi

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 who died 20 years ago. Id like to have on the Wikipedia as other artist are.It is my way to keep alive his painting and help someone to understand who was he. 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 name as 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? Should I start all over with another login name? Thank you for an answer. Jpgroppi (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgroppi You do not need to use your personal name or any proper name; your username must be unique to you. You may request that your account be renamed at Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS.
If there are few sources about him, though, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename my account is not my intention, do not take me wrong. I was just saying if the account name seems abiguous then I can change it. But it is not the case. Not sure I understood your phrase: "If there are few sources about him, though, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time"... Well??? But if I understood correctly, I could link you to a lot artists who are unknown and will stay as is, and even so are figuring in the Wikipedia.com. How could you explain this differences. So I do not understand this reluctance to let show Jean-Pierre Groppi. Sorry but please help me to enter Jean-Pierre in the Wikipedia and tell me what is wrong in the text supplied or references. Tank you for your time. Jpgroppi (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly many inappropriate articles on Wikipedia that should not exist, but as this is a volunteer project, it takes time to get to them. This cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. If you want to help us, you can identify any inappropriate articles you see so action can be taken. We need help. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this.person, then those need to be summarized in the draft. If you have no spurces, there is nothing you can do. If you want to tell the world about this man, consider social media or other website with less stringent requirements. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:33, 13 January 2024 review of submission by IonaFyne

Hello, May I resubmit the article, revised, with no photos or illustrations at all? I ask this because trying to understand how to tag photos/illustrations, showing I have the copyright, and working out what happens here and what happens on Commons, is taking me a lot of time. I don't want to delay the six-months 'window' for editing and resubmitting the draft. I'd like to have deleted all photos/illustrations that I have so far uploaded, as I feel it has become messy and further confused me. I'd rather have the article approved, and then make a fresh start, separately, to add illustrations at a later date, properly tagged and chosen so that everything can be clear on whatever needs to be confirmed. Thank you, IonaFyne 

IonaFyne (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IonaFyne: that does indeed sound like a plan. Images have no bearing (or at least, no positive one) on a draft's prospects, so you might as well leave them out for now, esp. if there are potential copyright etc. issues that could get in the way of things. As you say, you can always add such bells & whistles later on, once the draft has been accepted (assuming). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:03, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Deanjbyrne28

How do I declare a COI on a page? I have created a page and am awaiting review, but would like to disclose the COI for transparency and cannot seem to find how. I have note this at the top of the page in any case. Thank you. Deanjbyrne28 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deanjbyrne28: for making your disclosure on the article/draft talk page, use {{Connected contributor}}. Alternatively, you can place the disclosure on your own user page with {{User COI}}. Or for belt & braces, you can do both. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Filmshack (renamed user, apparently) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information, I will try that. yes I have been approved for renaming. Filmshack (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Pratik.S2005

It does match the notability guidelines of Wikipedia, But yet it is not getting published and I hope the approval may be given by an Indian approver only...... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005: it self-evidently does not match our notability guidelines, and consequently has been rejected. It will therefore not be considered further, but a reviewer of any nationality. Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am just saying that if any local approver would evaluate the page, then they can decide which is notable or not.... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Neolithicgambler

Dear whom it may concern,

I am wondering what is wrong with the submission I have made regarding this film's wikipedia profile - I added references and links to secondary sources proving its existence. I have no problem making adjustments where necessary, I am just a little confused as to what needs to be rectified before I submit it again? Neolithicgambler (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only have two sources, to pass this process we usually look for at least three sources. The production section is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Neolithicgambler: "proving its existence" isn't really the point; proving its notability, either per WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, is what we're looking for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neolithicgambler, your first source is not independent and your second source, while independent, devotes only four sentences to the film. What's required are multiple (at least three) independent sources devoting significant coverage to the film. Cullen328 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 13 January 2024 review of submission by 88.88.76.229

There is no online sources covering Open BSL. I'm one of the people who made it, so it thought it would be enough to make myself a source. How can i solve this? 88.88.76.229 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, but any article about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, your personal word is insufficient, especially with a conflict of interest as you have. This is why the draft qas rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about what they do. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The applicable content guideline is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 13 January 2024 review of submission by Wikipcontributor800

Help needed!

I am bit confounded. Want to create article "Jožo Nižnánsky" whoch is presently "Draft:Wikipcontributor800"

What to do? Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipcontributor800. You should be able to edit Draft:Jožo_Nižnánsky now. 94rain Talk 05:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for help Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

01:47, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Toddkatz

Regarding this notation by the evaluator:

" This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. (July 2023)"

Please know that I, as a long-time financial contributor to Wikipedia very much take exception to the insinuation by the evaluator that I created this article for an undisclosed payment, which is completely untrue, as I told him. Furthermore, the evaluator should at the very least point out the section(s) which caused him to come to reach this opinion. (Essentially, I am accused of cheating against Wikipedia rules.) Similarly, an example of what the evaluator sees as lack of a neutral perspective should be provided. I had to support the statements in the article with references … shouldn't the evaluator also adhere to that reasonable standard? Toddkatz (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally understand your frustration with the incorrect accusations. Wikipedia has strict policies against undisclosed paid contributions. If you have not been involved in any undisclosed payment for creating the article, communicating this clearly should be fine. The reviewer might have drawn that conclusion due to not adhering to a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch).
My other suggestion would be avoid citing their self-published sources including official websites, blogs, Google groups, Github. 94rain Talk 05:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toddkatz If you're not paid, okay. Your statement on your user page will be sufficient in that regard. You've been trying to edit about this password manager since 2016 which is an unusually strong personal investment in a topic, at least that we see here at AFC. You also have only 325-ish edits since 2009- both of these things will suggest to others that you could be a paid editor. Again, if you're not, okay- just explaining what people are seeing. It's hard to tell a passionate fan/passionate user from a COI/paid editor(we often see this with people editing about celebrities).
As an editor I thank you for donating, but donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, we editors have nothing to do with the process. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback.
I posted yesterday because I received an automated message from Wikipedia inviting me to update/fix the Clipperz Password Manager draft and resubmit. If I did that I guess I'd be reinforcing my "unusually strong personal investment in the topic" leading to further suspicions that I'm being paid to get an article published. Catch-22 indeed.
My motivation: Like about 10,000 other folks I'm a long-time user of this pioneering web-base freeware cryptographic software product and believed (and believe) that it was (and is) as qualified to have a Wikipedia page as many (but by no means all) of the 30 or so password managers that have dedicated Wikipedia pages, including a number that are obsolete, defunct or have been acquired and merged.
I can understand a judgement of "not notable enough" (even if I don't agree). But I don't understand accusing novice contributors of breaking Wikipedia rules (i.e. cheating) with zero evidence (If I had a history of trying to get at least several commercial products to have Wikipedia pages, the evaluator might have a leg to stand on). Nor do I understand alleging "not-neutral-enough" without at least pointing to a sentence as an example so as to help the submitter resubmit with a better chance of success. But, if it's not notable enough, there's no non-masochistic point in resubmitting. That, at least, I do understand. Toddkatz (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 14 January 2024 review of submission by CognitiveMMA

There are comments on the draft that it might need reorganization and that it might contain more than one topic. I would like assistance in addressing these issues. I don't understand what reorganization is needed, and without clear indication of what the editor meant by "more than one topic" I don't know where to even begin to address that. I also don't know how to find the editor who originally made the comment in order to ask them. Help would be appreciated. CognitiveMMA (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little but I'm not sure where the comment you refer to was made- but you can consult the edit history of the relevant page to see who made a comment, and a link to their user talk page will be provided there. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:53, 14 January 2024 review of submission by SteinSonne

Support for Removed Article Hello, My draft article titled 'Demonsomnia' has been declined. It was an article that I had prepared with great care, and its removal has truly been a disappointment for me. I have a strong desire to create a well-organized and proper article while adhering to all the rules. I need your assistance. If I can learn the reason for the removal of my article, I may be able to identify my mistakes. Where did I go wrong? Thank you very much. SteinSonne (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SteinSonne I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft. Your draft goes into too much detail about the game play and features. Any article about this upcoming game would need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game and what makes it notable as Wikipedia defines the term. It's doubtful that it will merit an article before it is released; once it is released, independent unsolicited reviews of the game by professional reviewers may exist which cam then be summarized. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined this again, @SteinSonne. Have a look at the essay WP:NVIDEOGAME which may help. I would suggest waiting for a few more sources to come along that discusses this video game and then add them, then re-submit. You may have to wait until it has been released.
Please rest assured you haven't done anything wrong. Wikipedia just has strict notability requirements. Qcne (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Sunday123321

Should this have not been rejected as the source is the person themselves?:

Using the subject as a self-published source

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties;[d] it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. Sunday123321 (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Your draft may be resubmitted.
IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. Any article about this person muat summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. If no such sources exist, she would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is IMDb Pro not IMDb, there is a differentiation between them, one allow anyone to make changes, the other does not- it only allows the account holder to make changes, unless I am mistaken.
The IMDb Pro biography states Serina Allam as the writer. Can I clarify, is a self bio not permitted as a source?
Philosophically, is one not presumed to be innocent until proven guilty?
Or are people who write self bios presumed to be guilty until proven innocent?
Who decides Wikipedia policy? Sunday123321 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community decides policy.
Primary sources like someone's autobiography cannot be used to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunday123321: sorry, does your question "Should this have not been rejected" mean to suggest that this should have been rejected rather than merely declined? If so, then yes, it could have been. Perhaps the reviewer was feeling generous and wanted to give you a second chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 14 January 2024 review of submission by 94.205.144.111

We need to publish because we are making a Wikipedia page, Regards CEO 94.205.144.111 (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this draft is about (I have no idea what a "Slander" is) but in any case, a Wikipedia article summarised what 'independent reliable sources say about a subject. Unless there are several such sources, there is literally nothing that can go into an article (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that the subject is not notable) and any attempt to create an article about it will fail. ColinFine (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MADEUP. Qcne (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 14 January 2024 review of submission by HaydnMillerUK

Most of my references do come from books and other forms of information physically but I did not think that it would work if I was to reference it as it is not from a site. Also, I found it hard because my online research came from one site, so the references would to quite small which is obvious. If there is any way I can do more to adding to the draft please tell me. HaydnMillerUK (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HaydnMillerUK, as long as the references are published with some sort of editorial control then you can use them. They can even be in Welsh! Format them as full references using WP:INTREFVE so that reviewers can verify the books etc exist. What was the one site you used- was it the treharrisdistrict one? The issue with that is that it seems to be a WordPress blog so I don't know how WP:RELIABLE it is. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 14 January 2024 review of submission by QTp-DGoat

I was told that a reference is missing but i think that i added the reference from the Hebrew counterpart, its basically just a translation and no changes were made so the same reference is used as it has all of the info of whats talked about in the page (the reference is in hebrew though so if it can't be used in an english page that may be the problem) QTp-DGoat (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see Translation. The key thing here is that different Wikipedias have different criteria for such things as referecing, and English Wikipedia is stricter than most.
An article relying on a single reference is almost never acceptable in English Wikipedia.
References in English are preferred if they are available, but if not, references in another language are perfectly acceptable, as long as they meet the requirements of the golden rule: reliably published, independent of the subject, and having significant coverage. It looks to me as if your one reference will be acceptable, but it is not enough.
Please review the requirements for notability in English Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I was told there are no references but i believe i copied the original reference from the hebrew page i translated QTp-DGoat (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged this into the previous section. Please don't start a new section/topic but add to the existing one. (I had already answered this additional question above). --ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 14 January 2024 review of submission by EvgeniyGolubev

Hi there. Could you please tell me why the References To Mohammed Abd Hassan that I am using to support the article are not reliable? Thank you. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EvgeniyGolubev, I am not a reviewer and do not speak Arabic but I think I can explain. Using Google Translate for a rough idea of what the sources say, it seems like many of your sources are stories that Mohammed Abd Hassan has written. These are not sources you can use on Wikipedia. You must look for sources like books about Mohammed Abd Hassan, or articles in newspapers (although keep in mind not all newspapers are reliable) - you must find information that someone else has written about him. Read through the reliable sources page for information on how to tell if a source is reliable. I hope this helps you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @StartGrammarTime, thank you for your message and recommendation. i would like that i didn't use any of Mohammed's Stories to write the Draft. most of the paragraphs in the Draft i used were from intervies with the writers and from the newspapers. unfortunately, there aren't any books about him, because he is a live writer and no many resources about his work. i collected the articles about him from different newspapers to write the draft. but i don't know how to make it acceptable. Thank you again for your help. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:35, 14 January 2024 review of submission by Sunday123321

'Serina Allam is an actress, dancer and model' – this is written by Serina Allam as the source as per the IMDb Pro link - is a self bio not permitted as a source? Philosophically, is one not presumed to be innocent until proven guilty? Or are people who write self bios presumed to be guilty until proven innocent? It is not self evident from the IMDB Pro website with evidence of a video of her acting and dancing that is a fact? Is her profile picture not self evident that she is modelling?

Is the film listed not self evident from being able to view her in it on the IMDb Pro website? Sunday123321 (talk) 23:35, 14 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.
Self-published sources may be used in a limited way, but the bulk of the article must com from sources wholly unconnected with the subject. ColinFine (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:40, 14 January 2024 review of submission by EvgeniyGolubev

because I am using reliable resources and my article is not acceptable EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EvgeniyGolubev: that's not a question. What did you want to ask?
The referencing in this draft remains inadequate: most of the content is unreferenced, and at least some of the sources cited are not appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing. thank you for your message. Most of the sources that i used in the Draft ar from newspapers and because the writer is not mentioned in books or international newspapers, it makes the resources difficult to obtain. Could you tell me the sources which are not appropriate. thank you for your help. EvgeniyGolubev (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

00:59, 15 January 2024 review of submission by 71.105.135.126

Various newer updates have been placed along with more publicity and notable placements have been cited, looking for updated placement and approval of the platform wiki page, specifically since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Terror?wprov=sfti1# has been placed.

There seems to be an overt sense of targeted gate keeping in comparison to other platforms placed with wiki pages 71.105.135.126 (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking, if anything, but this draft has been rejected a long ago, and will therefore not be considered further. If new evidence of notability is now available which wasn't considered at the time, you may make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your last comment seems to be a reference to Other stuff exists. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of articles which, if they were submitted today, would not be accepted. Ideally, these would be improved or deleted, but as this is a volunteer project, people work on what they choose to work on, and that doesn't happen a great deal. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:04, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Bhdshoes2

Hi - is there a way to link the Wikidata (Q17123817) number from German Wikipedia to this draft page? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhdshoes2: the links between different projects are added after the draft has been published as an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry - I'm unclear - i meant that there's a data number but i don't see a place in the draft side panel to add the wikidata number, not a link to German page. (I assume the number exists in first place bc someone once made a German page). Can a person add a wikidata number to a draft page? Bhdshoes2 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. A draft is not (yet) part of the encyclopaedia, and should not be linked to Wikidata. ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Judyvu214

Hi, I've just been denied my draft, how did I make it get approved? I want to provide information, but somehow it's still being considered as promoting action. Can you guide me on how to fix this? Judyvu214 (talk) 06:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Judyvu214/sandbox
@Judyvu214: you need to read and understand the relevant notability guidelines, in this case WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, and provide evidence that satisfies either of these. Until you do, and until your draft summarises what reliable and independent sources have said about this company, you're just "telling the world about it", ie. promoting it, by definition. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 15 January 2024 review of submission by 2001:44C8:41CB:8C2:7821:9AE0:592A:383E

Please tell me whats wrong? I have cited references , theres nothing here from the owner, I followed all your rules. Thank you. 2001:44C8:41CB:8C2:7821:9AE0:592A:383E (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have two sources (please see referencing for beginners about how to format references) both of which just document the availability of courses, and much of your draft is unsourced; any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Wdallen49

I'd like to get some assistance in correcting this article for compliance with Wikipedia standards. Is there someone who can help with this? Wdallen49 (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Edward ambele

I need to be directed in this article on how to fix it Edward ambele (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward ambele: this draft has been rejected, hence there is nothing to "fix" as it won't be considered further. It is completely unreferenced, with no indication (let alone evidence) of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 15 January 2024 review of submission by QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI

please approve this page. because this is most vip of sahiwal pakistan QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 15 January 2024 review of submission by QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI

please what a problem QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI: would you say that looks like an encyclopaedia article to you? No, didn't think so.
Apart from that, and the complete lack of apparently notability, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in any case, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't post the same question over and over. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:14, 15 January 2024 review of submission by QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI

what a problem please help me QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QARI MUHAMMAD SHAHEER ABDULLAH CISHTI we do not allow promotion of any kind. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 15 January 2024 review of submission by KevinMorgan2

Hi, why is this article being rejected? It is not promotional. KevinMorgan2 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may need to revise your definition of promotional because each and every line of that draft is promotional in nature. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 15 January 2024 review of submission by 2601:601:100:D260:B45B:E5C:76D2:CF97

Is there one way I could improve this draft? 2601:601:100:D260:B45B:E5C:76D2:CF97 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no, because it has been rejected and therefore won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Dpn427

How do we properly use reliable sources like articles, etc... It seems how I cited information was incorrect. Thank you! Dpn427 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at the Teahouse (WP:TH#Properly citing sources). Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:29, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Trainrobber66

How can I expand on my Draft. I'm in a bit of a pickle on what sources to find about the find and need a bit more guidance on how to add more. trainrobber 21:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for disruption. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Wikipcontributor800

My draft has been declined on ground that it is not adequately supported by reliable sources. But I supported article with resources. I dont know how to proceed further. Wikipcontributor800 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may be blacklisted. Double check, happened with me. That or they are too flawed even for Wikipedia. Wilhelm444 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please don't give misleading answers. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipcontributor800: Goodreads and IMDb are not reliable sources, as already mentioned in the draft comments. Adding citations to section headings is not recommended, as it (among other things) does not make it clear which part(s) of the section is supported. And it would be great if you could translate the 'meta information' in the references; in other words, publication titles can of course be left in the original language (although they can also be additionally translated with the trans-title parameter), but the descriptors and other details should be translated so that it is clear to an English-language reader what the sources actually are.
In any case you have resubmitted this, so another reviewer will take a look at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not have an answer again. Sorry for the inconvenience. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 15 January 2024 review of submission by Justaguy003

Hello,

Which part are you rejecting? The logo is important because of The Long Crimson Line, which is sourced. The topic itself is important because it is a Veterans society with a long ranging benefits for Veterans. Justaguy003 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Justaguy003: what do you mean 'which part'? The whole draft has been rejected. That's because there is no indication that the subject is notable. It cites only one close primary source, whereas we need to see significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. And the reviewer felt that for a society founded only two months ago, such sources are highly unlikely to exist, hence why they rejected rather than merely declined the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 16

01:05, 16 January 2024 review of submission by McMi!!ian

Hello,

I am trying to publish a page on Storm Internet Services (please note: I do not work for this company). I am trying to publish this page so that Storm Internet Services can be added to the list of Canadian ISPs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_internet_service_providers_in_Canada

There are several companies on that list with less references, that read more like advertisements. I am wondering why these entries were accepted, but the one about Storm Internet Services has been rejected? McMi!!ian (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be suspicion you were hired to advertise this company. Whilst the others for whatever reason were accepted. Someone higher up may let you publish it if you get enough attention. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm444: I'm sorry to say, nothing in your answer is correct; please don't give misleading 'advice'. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@McMi!!ian: we don't assess drafts by comparing to articles that may exist out there; there is almost certainly a completely unreferenced article among the 6.7m or so in the English-language Wikipedia, and that would mean that we can accept every draft without any sources at all. Also, those articles you refer to may not have been 'accepted' as such; they may predate the AfC process, or have been created by users with sufficient permissions to publish directly. (PS: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:33, 16 January 2024 review of submission by 103.144.27.118

Why I'm getting rejected ? 103.144.27.118 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected as it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:55, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Wilhelm444

Is it possible to use your own personal evidence as a source? I do not want this topic to be left alone, I feel strongly about it. Wilhelm444 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilhelm444, You cannot do anything with this draft as it has been rejected and tagged under CSD G3 criteria for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for any time wasted. I do intend on becoming a journalist now, it was not a hoax. It lacked all evidence except my small community's witness to this cult. I may go to a more expert on the topic and then publish the article. If it is cited one day, I may finally write the article I hoped of making. Wilhelm444 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilhelm444: no, it isn't possible to use 'personal evidence'. Sources must be not only published, they must be reliable and secondary. Wikipedia isn't for recording your own experiences, it is for summarising what published sources have said about a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Andykatib

I was wondering if this article is ready to submit. The article covers the film development, casting, and production process. I have also attached reviews. There are 12 sources in the reference list. I have done Google searches but there are not too many sources on the series. Do you think it is ready yet or is there still room for improvement? I could archive the references if it helps. Andykatib (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Kingnuel001

i am requesting assistance to add this article as its being constantly declined because of lack of enough references and i can see other articles not up to this that are being accepted 

Kingnuel001 (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingnuel001: never mind other articles, they have no bearing on this. Your draft has failed to demonstrate that the subject is notable. And you have now created this so many times, that although you finally disclosed your COI, you are getting close to being blocked for promotional editing. My advice would be to stop now, and find something else to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingnuel001 Please see other stuff exists; there are many reasons that inappropriate articles could exist, this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. that another article exists does not mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, inappropriate articles can get by us and take time to deal with. If you would like to help us, please identify any inappropriate articles you see so action can be taken. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

The Tromanale Filmfestival was the only counterpart festival of the Berlinale in Berlin - and it was very specal because of its underground feeling touch. There are many Wikipedia-Sides, that reference to the Tromanale. But all these references are dead links, because there is still no Tromanale Wikipedia Side on the english part of Wikipedia. In the German Part of Wikipedia there ia a Tromanale page. I can not really understand what the matter is. There are many Dead links on Wikipedia because the Tromanale-Links are red, there is a German Wikipedia Side of the Tromanale - so why cant there be a english side of the Tromanale? Tromaggot (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tromaggot: the reason (for the time being, at least) why there isn't an article on this subject is that no one has written one. Or to be more precise, you have written a draft three times, and three times abandoned it, causing the drafts to be deleted after six months. The fourth attempt is now awaiting review. Does that answer your question?
As for the redlinks you mention, there is no fundamental problem with having redlinks.
And whether the German-language Wikipedia has an article on this subject isn't strictly relevant, as each language version is completely separate.
BTW, do you have some connection with this subject? If so, please see WP:COI. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Justsstdesigns

what wrong with this article 

Justsstdesigns (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justsstdesigns: what's wrong with it is that it's WP:ADMASQ, and you haven't disclosed your paid editing. And even if/when you do, you still aren't allowed to use Wikipedia to promote your clients. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:32, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Fuzeen

Draft:Pureland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzeen (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why you had rejected my article Fuzeen (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not interested in things you made up one day. Qcne (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But really this is true that Pureland has established yesterday. Fuzeen (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read made up. Qcne (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not me that I had established Fuzeen (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? Qcne (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am Pakistani and a Bangladeshi unknown guy created this Pureland. Fuzeen (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Qcne (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my article Fuzeen (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it has been rejected. Qcne (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can I do now? Fuzeen (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing, maybe you could improve existing Wikipedia articles. Qcne (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who made it up. If it hasn't been discussed by several independent reliable sources, Wikipedia isn't interested. Period. ColinFine (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 16 January 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AB88:7083:A480:FCA6:CFC4:8623:F434

Hi, is this page under approval or is it declined? thanks 2A02:AB88:7083:A480:FCA6:CFC4:8623:F434 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted Draft:Susan_Kosti for review. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Fuzeen

Please accept my article .I am not involved with this Pureland. Fuzeen (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether you are involved or not the topic is not notable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered your question above @Fuzeen. Qcne (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Ranjetkumar66

Dear wikipedia admins. 'i am writing to a request the undeletion of the Wikipedia page for Dr. Pretit Samdani the page was recently deleted, and i believe there are compelling reasons for its reinstatement. Ranjetkumar66 (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranjetkumar66 but it was not deleted- it's right here. But I declined it as there is no evidence the person passes our notability requirements. Qcne (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked as a sock.-- Ponyobons mots 20:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Bhdshoes2

- In trying to establish this subject as notable did I "over-peacock" with laudatory quotes? They are all quotes, not textual language. Trying to call attention to the sources establishing Sanders as a notable jazz player. Bhdshoes2 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Toysrusisbad

can you submit it looks a wikipedia article Toysrusisbad (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Toysrusisbad

i put a lot of time into this please sumbit it Toysrusisbad (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Toysrusisbad

SUMBMIT IT NOW OR I WILL LEAK YOUR HOME Toysrusisbad (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toysrusisbad threats against other users are prohibited on this platform and will lead to your account being blocked. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 16 January 2024 review of submission by Sasyikumar

Why the article being rejected Sasyikumar (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:31, 17 January 2024 review of submission by 企業チェック

Wikiページの修正ポイントがわからず、どのポイントをどのように修正すれば良いのかサポートをお願い致します。 企業チェック (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1196291786"