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 Humaira28 (talk | contribs) at 08:37, 1 February 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Rachele Focardi). 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 26

00:42, 26 January 2024 review of submission by LunaSparks

This isnt a question about editing, but I was wondering if I would be allowed to post this article to a fandom community while I wait until Red Leather himself meets all requirements to have a wikipedia page. LunaSparks (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to ask the relevant Fandom community; you would need to attribute the posting there to Wikipedia to just reuse it elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 26 January 2024 review of submission by HAL 7C0

I find the reason given ('topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia') for rejecting the submission difficult to understand and very subjective. Depending on the interests of the person making the decision, this entry may be more or less relevant. The fact is that mital-U is an independent music label that has produced some relevant releases (including chart entries in Germany + Austria with Eisbaer by Grauzone, as well as Record of the Week of the song automaten by mittageisen on the John Peel Radio Show BBC1). Therefore, I would be grateful for a reversal of the rejection and an indication of where there might be a need for additions to the list. HAL 7C0 (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL 7C0: this draft was declined five times before being rejected. I'd say that's plenty of opportunity to demonstrate notability, but if this isn't forthcoming, then eventually we have to reject as we can't keep reviewing the same draft indefinitely.
Notability of companies is defined in WP:CORP, and there is very little, if any, subjectivity in that guideline. It certainly does not in any way consider the "interests of the person", or "relevance" of the subject (whatever that means, exactly). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing, thank you for your feedback.
The previous rejections were due to the missing sources/references, which have been added in the meantime. So far there was never any mention of 'not relevant'... which as I noted before I consider to be a very subjective judgement. Especially when I look at other approved/accepted entries from other small independent labels.
For this reason, I would ask for approval or information on what is specifically missing. HAL 7C0 (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 26 January 2024 review of submission by JuniperChill

First thing, is the layout of the article Sun Haven alright? I have been looking at other video games that are released in 2023 like Coral Island (video game) and My Time at Sandrock.

And second, are reliable sources required since I think none of them (other than the link to the official website presented in the 'external links' section) are primary sources. I feel like the main reason for my article being rejected (even though I put a few reviews on that game) is because of the fact that there are little to no reliable sources for Sun Haven at WP:VG/S and does not really meet GNG even though I thought it just creeps it (see the history) Although I did find a few reviews of it. There is also not currently a Metacritic review. I was thinking this game is quite popular it is more popular than Fae Farm IMO but I think what matters is that not how popular it is but if there are at least a couple of reliable sources. The closest I can find is from RPS but that is not its own page.

As well as my comment here, you should see the reviewers one too. JuniperChill (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JuniperChill: in short, yes, reliable sources are very much required, because everything you say must be supported by (ie. come from, in practice) a reliable source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 26 January 2024 review of submission by 2603:3024:1526:EB00:90DF:2BAB:6CC3:EDC0

This band was a very well known 1990s punk band. I can provide many more references. I wanted to ask which type you find most credible - 1) Scholarly Journals, 2) rock/music magazines, 3) fan pages, videos. -- One of their songs is a viral tiktok song - the #yeastiegirlz hashtag on TikTok has 2.5M views. They were on Lookout records, there are lookout bands with Wikipedia pages that I would argue are much less significant that the Yeastie Girlz. I am sure that I can meet the standard, but I want to know what sort of references that best meet your requirements. Thank you. 2603:3024:1526:EB00:90DF:2BAB:6CC3:EDC0 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Journals and rock/music magazines would be best, fan pages and videos would confer zero notability. TikTok views confer zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Youraveragemothra

don't ask for that, because i was maked jeff boi on wikipedia page Youraveragemothra (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Youraveragemothra

when i was 11 year old. i was be created of jeff boi to make a page for wikipedia, however this page got Rejected i guess. anyway i live on brazil fortaleza and my youtube username is YourAverageMothra.i hope this page was accept, thank you Youraveragemothra (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Youraveragemothra, thank you for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia, the world's largest encyclopedia. Unfortunately, the draft will not be accepted because Jeff boi does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, which is the standard for an encyclopedia article here. I enjoyed the artwork though! :) S0091 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Ngaihthang

Why did you not accept? This is what I can do it for also that is strong enough. Truly, no one big media is asking about the question. I do not have any idea of anything. If you guys need anything more please adding for me. I think you can help me with that. Ngaihthang (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngaihthang the reasons for not accepting are outlined in the multiple declines and comments. The draft is now rejected so will not be considered further. S0091 (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Ineck

I don't understand what's not good enough with the citations. Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to allow a reader to verify a claim in an article, from a reliable source - and preferably a source unconnected with the subject. If a book by the subject has been discussed by an independent commentator, cite that commentary; if it hasn't, why is it important enough to be mentioned in the article at all?
The article should be a summary of what independent commentators have published (in reliable places) about the subject, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 26 January 2024 review of submission by FireBrigadeFanaticNO1

Denied for no 'Viable sources'. I have added more that do relate to the topics discussed yet I'm unaware if it is enough. Could I get some assistance with this though? I'm unable to look at it in libraries ect as I live miles from Merseyside.

Though any help if i need more sources would be helpful FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add onto this, before you ask there is TWO Southport Fire Brigades. One in Merseyside, United Kingdom and one way down under, in Australia. So sources can look like the UK or Aus one but be the opposite!
I'm also aware that Southport Fire Brigade has little sources of it even existing. This is due to the fact of what it says in the article. It was, later on in its existence, a one bay station. This means that all info is likely to be hidden deep in the web or come from museums etc (Which means it cant always be 100% proven!).
Some things, such as the 'Ranks' section has 0 source. It was one of, if not the only, Fire Brigade in the UK to not have the proper rank system.
Many thanks for reading admins. FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, WAS not IS. Mistake on my part as they no longer function.
Apologies FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, FireBrigadeFanaticNO1. The very first step in creating an article is to find sources that meet the golden rule: they are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject; but they do not have to be online, or even in English, as long as they have been published.
If you cannot find adequate sources to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there is no point in spending any more time on such an article, as it will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 26 January 2024 review of submission by Hramrach

What's not 'in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article', specifically? Hramrach (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

02:07, 27 January 2024 review of submission by SonicTH1991

I need someone else to improve this article for me, what I’ve done is just a template for them to start off from but they must use this template and modify it to fit your guidelines. SonicTH1991 (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, SonicTH1991, it doesn't work like that. Leaving a stub around hoping that somebody will pick it up and make it into an acceptable article is like piling up some wood and hoping that somebody will build a house out of it. Why should anybody? If you want there to be an article on a subject, you do the leg-work, starting with finding the sources that justify having an article on the subject at all.
Wikipedia did use to work like that, long ago. The result is that we have thousands and thousands of more-or-less useless articles that nobody much wants to put the time in to improve or delete. We don't want more of those, thanks. ColinFine (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:49, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Mechachleopteryx

I would like other editors to read the article and improve it. I am not an expert on the topic so it would be better to be in the main namespace possibly with a tag that says stub. A page might sit for years before someone finds it who happens to be an expert or who has free time to do research. Mechachleopteryx (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply to SonicTH1991 just above.
You don't need to be an expert on a subject to write an article on it: you just need to be able to find (and understand) the required independent, reliable, in-depth sources on the subject. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Pastafan123

Can you tell me if dead links are acceptable (websites which are no longer retrievable)?

Also can I use petitions submitted to the UN by someone independent of the subject of the article? If so, would i use the journal template for citation? Pastafan123 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be online, as long as they are reliably published and in principle obtainable (even if you would have to go to a particular library to consult them).
Again, with the petition: is it published? Who by? If by a reliable publisher, then probably yes; if by its originator, probably yes but as a self-published source, which can only be used in limited ways. ColinFine (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi

Sorry to insist, I still do not undersatd what is wrong with the text. Pls help me to understand. Thank you for an answer. Jpgroppi (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text is unreferenced. Plastering half a dozen citations on one sentence at the end achieves nothing. For every single assertion in an article you should have a source that tells a reader where they can verify the assertion. ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most are referenced by newspaper articles. All that are referenced are controllable by these newspapers. I have a copy of all. But how to show it in Wikipedia? Unfortunatly Jean-Pierre lived in a time where internet was not present or just present. Jpgroppi (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Hyder1977

why my page was reject , please help me to activate Hyder Ali (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyder1977 The messages left on the draft are pretty clear. The draft cites no independent reliable sources, and it is written in an overtly promotional tone. Based on your username, it appears to be an autobiography, and writing about yourself on Wikipedia is generally not allowed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Uphila

What determines if a person is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Uphila (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uphila see WP:NBIO. None of the sources you tried to cite are reliable because they are user-generated| or otherwise have no evidence other editorial oversight, history of fact checking, etc. Not to mention it fails WP:NOTPROMO. The draft is rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Juanese1990

Goal Juanese1990 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanese1990 you do not ask at question but after several submissions with guidance on what is needed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and no relevant improvement, the draft is now rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:26, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Nickchoksi

Hello Double Grazing, please guide me what went wrong in this content, cause this Jewelry Manufacturing Information is genuinely missing in Wikipedia, and this is a Huge Industry ... Nickchoksi (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickchoksi I'm not DoubleGrazing but the draft has no sources, is written like an essay so violates Wikipedia's WP:neutral point of view and original research policies, and much of it is already covered in Jewellery and other supporting articles. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:54, 27 January 2024 review of submission by TraceySear840

I feel the second draft reviewerwas really incompletein their analysis.

Based on the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and considering the case for the notability of Portal Fernández Concha, the argument for its notability can be framed as follows: 

   Significant Coverage: Portal Fernández Concha has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. This coverage is not trivial and addresses the subject directly and in detail, fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage under the general notability guideline (WP:SIGCOV). Sources include historical archives, academic studies on Chilean architecture, and reputable news outlets reporting on the Portal's cultural and societal impacts.

   Reliable Sources: The information about Portal Fernández Concha comes from reliable sources with editorial integrity, allowing for verifiable evaluation of notability per the reliable source guideline. These include peer-reviewed journals on architecture and history, books published on the cultural heritage of Santiago, and articles from established news organizations.

   Independent Coverage: Coverage of Portal Fernández Concha comes from sources independent of the subject, ensuring objectivity and compliance with Wikipedia's requirement that sources be independent of the topic (WP:INDY). This independence assures that the coverage is not influenced by self-promotion or conflict of interest.

   Notability is Not Temporary: The Portal's historical significance and its role in Santiago's urban fabric are enduring, meeting the criterion that notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). Its historical, architectural, and cultural relevance has been sustained over a significant period, establishing its lasting notability.

   Presumption of Notability: Given the significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, Portal Fernández Concha is presumed to merit its own article (WP:PRESUMED). This presumption is based on the depth of coverage and the quality of sources, even if some aspects of the Portal might require further sourcing or expansion.

   Subject-Specific Guidelines: While general notability guidelines are paramount, subject-specific guidelines for buildings and structures also support the notability of Portal Fernández Concha. These guidelines consider the architectural significance, historical value, and cultural impact of structures, all of which are well-documented for the Portal.

   Notability Requires Verifiable Evidence: The evidence of notability for Portal Fernández Concha is verifiable and documented in accessible sources (WP:NRV). This verifiability is critical in establishing the Portal's eligibility for a Wikipedia article. TraceySear840 (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this is now being debated at ANI (as well as the reviewer's UTP), I guess no response is required from AFCHD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 27 January 2024 review of submission by Ілля Криворучко

Permanent decline of my submissions at Articles for creation. Ілля Криворучко (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ілля Криворучко: no, not 'permanent', only until you demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Adding more sources that fail to do that is not helpful, and will inevitably result in further declines.
That said, the draft is awaiting a new review, and you aren't actually asking a question... do you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a Wikipedia article about the notability of sportsmen (Notability (sports)), but there is no information about swimmers. What sources can be considered as notable for swimmers? Ілля Криворучко (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ілля Криворучко: as I already mentioned in one of my reviews, there is no special notability guideline for swimmers, therefore the general WP:GNG guideline applies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help!! Ілля Криворучко (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

01:19, 28 January 2024 review of submission by Greatkrome

how do i do this am lost please Greatkrome (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't; the draft has been rejected. Wikipedia is not social media where people tell about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greatkrome, your draft is unreferenced and not acceptable for this encyclopedia. Please study Your first article to understand what is required. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:25, 28 January 2024 review of submission by 49.145.202.63

Cause i want my own article wikipedia 49.145.202.63 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be able to have an article on you published one day, if you prove to be notable, but even then it shouldn't be written by yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 28 January 2024 review of submission by Juanese1990

Football friendly Juanese1990 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanese1990: that's not a question, and this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:18, 28 January 2024 review of submission by Rcjqffm

We are somewhat lost. We believe we responded to the criticism of our contribution. Our request for more detailed information has so far gone unanswered. So what else can we do? Rcjqffm (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only a single person should have access to and be operating your account.
Please see the messages left by reviewers, especially that regarding referencing and sources. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft appears to have been written BACKWARDS. First find the reliable, independent, substantial sources, and then forget everything you know about the subject and write a summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:14, 28 January 2024 review of submission by NaviR-88

How to create an album template like in the french page ? NaviR-88 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Template:Discography list. But I suggest you don't worry about that yet, and concentrate on getting the sources and the text. I haven't looked carefully at your sources, but I'm not sure that they are adequate to establish Notability according to English Wikipedia's criteria. ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:16, 28 January 2024 review of submission by बाबा अमर सिंह पवन

Baba amar singh pawan बाबा अमर सिंह पवन (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write in Hindi, please go to the Hindi Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 28 January 2024 review of submission by 2600:1702:4CA9:4280:E86B:4715:170:1B2A

I do not know what else I can do to be able go gain your approval. Is there someone that can advise and help? 2600:1702:4CA9:4280:E86B:4715:170:1B2A (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. There is nothing you can do, the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what @331dot says, you risk similarly losing access to the other drafts if you don't pay attention to the advice you've been given. Star Mississippi 21:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 28 January 2024 review of submission by Juanese1990

No Juanese1990 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not asked a question.
You have repeatedly re-submitted drafts without any effort to address reviewers' feedback. Continuing to do so will mean you lose access to edit. Star Mississippi 21:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:43, 28 January 2024 review of submission by Electromagnetosaurusshop

I need help to understand better what counts as a reference and how to add them to the page. Thank you so much Electromagnetosaurusshop (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 28 January 2024 review of submission by Ahmed nazar barim

My document keeps getting denied. My people have been denied the right to exist and celebrate our culture for over a hundred years. Enough is enough! We need to publish the truth. I'm sorry if my citings are opinionated or not backed enough, but I Ahmed nazar Barim am a child of Sukri refugees we remember the camps, and the mass destruction and massacres of our people. And were tired of being silenced Ahmed nazar barim (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:N. Netherzone (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmed nazar barim And also WP:SOAPBOX. We could go on and on about here about Wikipedia not being the appropriate platform for what you want want to do. Best to move on and find an alternative outlet, such as your own website. S0091 (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

05:04, 29 January 2024 review of submission by CognitiveMMA

Can you please specify any of the criteria that the article violates in response to the reason for rejection being cited as "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) and in response to the comment WP:NOTESSAY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOTESSAY and is there any Wikipedia policy that discourages the same group of editors from blocking publication of an article repeatedly without providing adequate justification of their reasons? CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:46, 29 January 2024 review of submission by CognitiveMMA

The talk page of the editor @Seawolf35 who rejected the article clearly shows that he was cooperating with the editor @MrOllie that I raised the ANI complaint about. Wikipedia is supposed to be about disseminating knowledge, not a personal club to settle vendettas. I don't even understand what vendetta they have other than telling me they thought I was just trying to publish an article to get my name in Wikipedia. However, I have no conflicts of interest whatsoever. Neither my name, nor citations of my work, nor mention of any organization I have ever been connected with appears in the article. I don't mind if they provide legitimate reasons for rejecting the article, but the ANI complaint shows they were providing clearly false reasons like saying that I've cited my own work, and then refusing to provide any detail to their comments. As I mentioned in the complaint, there has to be some way to address this disruptive behavior. CognitiveMMA (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

op blocked indef. ltbdl (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:40, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Unnoon338

This Draft Article has been rejected with no reason. The page creator is not a sock puppet user and i let you know that please review it and Move to the main Space. Thank you Unnoon338 (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI for those reviewing. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, Unnoon338 is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit (blether) 08:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:59, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Swalahu1212

Why this got rejected Swalahu1212 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swalahu1212: as it said in the rejection notice, there was no evidence of notability. It was subsequently deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:06, 29 January 2024 review of submission by 45.117.64.14

What went wrong? I really did not understand. 45.117.64.14 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the subject is notable, and this after several earlier declines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:37, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Anurangafernando10

why not upload Anurangafernando10 (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anurangafernando10: what do you mean?
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. If you want to tell the world about yourself, you need to find a different site for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Footy031982

Could you please inform me what kind of content and how many separate pieces are required, there are multiple supporting references included but appreciate these may not be the right kind which is what is resulting in the ongoing referrals to be declined. Kindest Regards Footy031982 (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion of this would be academic, as the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your sources seem to just summarize match results and their activities, no significant coverage as to what independent sources consider to be important/significant/influential about this person. 331dot (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Coileater

why did my article get deleted? Coileater (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coileater Your draft was not deleted, it is located at Draft:MS Postira. It was declined due to the reason given by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Schwepps

My page keeps on getting rejected. There is a through list of credible sources, so not sure what the issue is. Schwepps (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company. Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Please read Your First Article.
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Juanese1990

Soccer Juanese1990 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanese1990: if you wish to ask a question, ask a question, but please stop posting these cryptic one/two-word messages, which are not helpful at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Fjnovoa

I would like to resubmit this article, all citations using FamilySearch have been removed as requested. Fjnovoa (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fjnovoa Rejected drafts typically may not be resubmitted. If you believe you have fundamentally changed the draft and addressed the concerns of reviewers, you should first attempt to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I appeal and reach 331dot (talk); could you please guide me how to send this person a message? Fjnovoa (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fjnovoa: by going to their user talk page User talk:Star Mississippi and clicking on the 'add topic' button in the top menu; this will create a new discussion thread where you can post your message. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 29 January 2024 review of submission by Fjnovoa

I have attempted to reach out to StarMississippi and cannot get through or get a response. I do not want my article deleted, I have made edit changes, please. Fjnovoa (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fjnovoa give @Star_Mississippi time to respond. We're all volunteers here. As far as I can see you only reached out to them today. Qcne (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind response. Fjnovoa (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Qcne and @DoubleGrazing (above thread). I have responded. Apologies for the delay.
My weekday on wiki hours are limited Star Mississippi 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 29 January 2024 review of submission by LibrariesStillRock

The declination of this draft said it reads like "advertisement" rather than encyclopedic. Can someone show me how that's the case and how I can amend it? I understand the idea and want to fix anything I wrote that came across as an advertisement. I pulled every claim and fact from sources, but it's my first submission, so please do let me know what I should change to reflect impartial research. Thank you! LibrariesStillRock (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LibrariesStillRock: when this draft was declined, it did have quite a lot of promotional and 'peacock' language in it, some of which appears to have been since removed. But even now, it gives the impression of trying to praise or 'sell' the subject, whereas you should merely describe him in boring, factual manner. And content such as the last para in the 'Sterling Foundation Management' section ("The company's website lists some client-approved testimonials. Those statements include...") is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article, even one on the foundation itself, let alone an indirectly related person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that makes sense. My thinking was just to give a glimpse at what and who he works with, but I can see how that sounds promotional. I think I was too focused on trying to prove "notability." LibrariesStillRock (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


January 30

01:22, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

Hello! I created the Little Z draft article, and it was declined from being published. It said it was because I didn't site references, but I was wondering if I added references if the article could be published, and if not, what would I need to change? Thank you for your time. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan: this draft is effectively entirely unreferenced, which is totally unacceptable for any article, but especially so for articles on living people. For the same reason, there is also no evidence that the subject is notable. If you can provide sources which support the draft contents and establish notability, you may resubmit this for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mayor Orangutan. I'm afraid that you have done what most new editors do if they try to create an article before they have spent time learning the craft of editing Wikipedia: you have written your draft BACKWARDS. Absolutely the very first task in writing an article is finding sources - not just any sources, but independent, reliable, published sources which discuss the subject in depth|. There are two extremely good reasons why this should be the first thing you do:
  1. If you cannot find enough satisfactory sources to base an article on, then you will know that the article cannot be accepted (in Wikipedia jargon, the subject is not notable), and every second you spend on it thereafter will be time wasted.
  2. If, having written your draft, you now find sources, you will need to revise your draft so that everything in it can be verified by a reliable source. This is likely to mean substantial rewriting.
My standard advice is to leave your draft aside completely for a few months, while you learn about Wikipedia's requirements by making improvements to existing articles; learning particularly about verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability.
Then you can read your first article and (probably) start your draft again if you find evidence of notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:54, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Smadur661

How can i write my submmision accordinly?. 

Smadur661 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smadur661: I have rejected your draft, because it isn't a viable encyclopaedia article. In fact, I don't even know what it's about! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:14, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 74.119.255.46

I need help writing the page for Orato World Media as it keeps getting deleted 74.119.255.46 (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material is usually deleted on sight, as promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note 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) 16:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Pilgrimant

The submission was declined, giving exactly the same reason as months ago. However, in the meanwhile the draft was improved, and is full of references that can be verified. The refusal is thus motivated by other reasons, as what it says simply does not stand up scrutiny. Therefore I ask the submission to be sent to another, more reasonable and not so biased reviewer. Pilgrimant. Pilgrimant (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilgrimant: I would advise against unfounded accusations of bias or other ulterior motives, without any evidence to support your contention, especially when multiple reviewers have seen fit to decline the draft.
Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly 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. Which source gives this person's DOB? Where do the details in the 'Education' section come from?
I believe the draft was correctly declined, although personally I would have probably declined it for the does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations reason, instead or in addition to the not adequately supported by reliable sources one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reply did not contain any accusation. If a same reply is repeated, to a much improved draft, without giving further reasons, that etymologically corresponds to the repetition of a previous judgment, so it was pre-judged, or pre-judiced.
Concerning your point, I am using Wikipedia since a long time, and never saw any date of birth or educational details being ever referenced in an entry. It also does not make much sense, as these data are trivial and can be verified, by official sources. I presume Agnes Horvath has all the relevant documents, but don't see how and why this could or should be put online. What matters are publications, reviews, references, and all these were amply referenced, to publicly available sources.
So, I do not understand your claim about minimum online citation requirement, as there are many such online citations in the Draft. Can you "define" minimal citation standard? In terms of number of references per sentences? Or per words? Can you direct me to a site selected by you which meets these requirements? Pilgrimant (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Date of birth is not trivial- if you merited a Wikipedia article, would you not want your date of birth correctly sourced in the article? If you see articles with unsourced dates of birth, that needs to be addressed. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EVERY Wikipedia article I EVER read was with unsourced birth. I just checked several scholars I know, still alive, and there was no such reference in any of these sites. I presume if somebody sees an error with his/ her birth date, corrects it. Pilgrimant (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What utter tosh. Every article has an unreferenced DOB, really? If that's your line of argument, then I'm not going to waste my time even trying to explain, other than signposting you (again) to this: WP:DOB. Good day, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a seriously abusive reply. Could you send me ONE wiki entry in which the date of birth is referenced online? Pilgrimant (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of them, more importantly please mention the articles that don't have a referenced birthdate because they will need tagging per WP:BLP. Theroadislong (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I have never seen one. Send please in your reply ONE such link. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rishi Sunak. Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the lede section often doesn't have references because they appear further on in the main body of the articles, but the date of birth MUST be referenced. Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The following then should be deleted (or "updated"):
Oliver James Dowden
Jeremy Hunt
James Spencer Cleverly
Michael Gove
I stop here, I don't have time to continue going through the current members of the UK Government. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Michael Gove his date of birth is cited in the first line of the "Early life and education" section. As we said, the source will not necessarily be in the lead or infobox. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same for James Cleverly. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see this now. However, these are all politicians, not academics. If you look at academics/ social scientists, this new rule is not shown in their case. See Anthony Giddens or Jürgen Habermas, most famous social scientists. Pilgrimant (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged those for citation needed, please see other poor quality articles exist. Theroadislong (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a "new rule"- WP:BLP is by no means new. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it isn't necessarily referenced in the lead or infobox, the reference may be in the article itself. I second Theroadislong- please provide one article with an unreferenced DOB so we can remove the unsourced date or tag it. "If somebody sees an error" and corrects it- is ripe for abuse and vandalism with out sources. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pilgrimant ALL of those articles have references for birth dates, you have clearly not read far enough into the articles Theroadislong (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 30 January 2024 review of submission by WW AA 1

Hello, I would like to understand what references aren't approved or if I need to add any more references. I'm struggling to understand the feedback and need it simplified so I can understand and edit the page please, thank you. WW AA 1 (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WW AA 1 As said by the reviewer, "This article and the sources it cites to are WP:CHURNALISM pieces or product listing. Current citations do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV or raise above WP:PASSING mentions. Does not yet demonstrate WP:N.". Put another way, you used paid promotional pieces or basic product listings as sources- what is needed instead are independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this business- sources that on their own(not prompted by or based on information fed by the business) choose to write about the business extensively and describe what they see as important/significant/influential about it- how it meets our special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. The vast majority of businesses do not merit Wikipedia articles.
Do you have an association with this business? 331dot (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WW AA 1: most of the draft content is unreferenced – where is the information coming from, and how do we know it's correct? (Hint: we would know this from the referencing.)
And the three sources that are cited do not establish notability: one is WP:FORBESCON, the other two are just routine business reporting, and likely to originate with the company in question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Dinky13

Hi, I am submitting an article about a company. I am a bit confused about copyright permissions when submitting images and logos for this document. Am I correct in thinking that if I use images and brand or company logos that are already in the public domain (i.e., have appeared in independent articles on the internet) and credit the source, these will be acceptable? I have read all the information about non-free logos and criteria, etc., and Wikimedia commons, but it is still confusing. The above is my understanding. And I know I have to tick all the boxes on the template. If you could give me a step-by-step or clear and easy guide to understanding this, I would be very grateful. Thanks so much, Daniela Dinky13 (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logos cannot just be taken from internet and used. They need to be uploaded to this Wikipedia (not Commons) under "fair use" rules. Fair use images cannot be in drafts under these rules, though. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about images until the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you work for this company? 331dot (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just to add to this, appearing on the internet is not the same as being in the public domain, in what comes to copyright. The vast majority of images available on the internet are still subject to copyright.
This draft is currently unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. Your primary focus should be to provide sources which a) verify the information, and b) establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 狄の用務員

It seems that someone hit the submit button on this article I was writing, can I stop this manuscript submission process?

I don't think there are any critical issues with the quality of the article, but the image acceptance process at Wikimedia has been difficult, and I for one hope to publish the article when the image issue is stable.

Of course I understand that the draft is already a public text, and I know that in theory anyone can submit it. However, I find it strange that a user who has not added even a single word would just hit the submit button, and that user has most recently submitted a blank draft, and I don't really believe that users who make such a submission have any idea what they are doing.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do about this issue. 狄の用務員 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@狄の用務員: yes, it seems PlaneCrashKing1264 submitted it, for reasons best known to them (perhaps they can enlighten us all?). If you're happy to have the draft reviewed, just leave it as it is, otherwise let us know and we can decline it, which removes it from the pending pool for the time being. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much. I hope to decline the submission.
I am aware of the issues identified by the reviewers and will work quickly to improve them, but since I cannot predict the outcome regarding the images, I would like to return the article to the pending pool and see the results. 狄の用務員 (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員: on second thoughts, I've undone the submission rather than declining it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 30 January 2024 review of submission by RolfSander

Could someone please explain to me why this article was rejected? Initially, the draft included a section called Computers and meridians. The section was important because it contained several reliable sources that added to the notability of the game Meridians. Besides, it was (in my opinion) written from a neutral point of view. It was not promotional as I'm not associated with any of the gaming platforms mentioned there.

Then two things happened: First, someone completely deleted the Computers and meridians section and all references in it. Next, the submission was rejected because the references did not contain sufficient in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent sources.

I don't think this was a fair review process. I would suggest that someone reviews the article again, however, this time also considering the previously deleted section about Computers and meridians. RolfSander (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:Meridians (game) has no reliable independent sources and that is what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that sources must be reliable and independent. What I don't understand is why you think that the 5 gaming platforms mentioned in the original article are not reliable and independent. Is there any reason to believe that they provide false information about the Meridians game? If not, I consider them to be reliable. The other question is about independence. To the best of my knowledge, none of these gaming platforms pays any money to the inventor of the game, nor do they receive any money from him. Do you have any reason to believe that this might be the case? So let me rephrase my questions:
Why do you think that any of the gaming platforms provides inaccurate information, i.e., is not reliable?
Why do you think that any of the gaming platforms is not independent? RolfSander (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RolfSander: I actually agree with the deletion of the 'Computers and meridians' section. It is the same as if an article on a book said that the book can be bought at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Waterstones. How is that relevant (other than in helping to drive sales through those outlets)?
Also, just for the record, this draft was not rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only decline (which means you can resubmit it once you've addressed the decline reasons). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is different. Saying that you can buy a book at Amazon and elsewhere is definitely promotional because they make money when selling that book. However, if several gaming platforms have invested time in writing their own code to implement online-play, this clearly adds to the notability of the game.
Thanks for explaining the difference between declining and rejecting! Do you have any suggestion how I can revise the article so that it becomes acceptable? RolfSander (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RolfSander: okay, I will admit to being unfamiliar with these 'gaming platforms'. I assumed that if, as you say, they've invested time and effort into doing something, they hope to gain something from their investment?
But even if that's not the case, I don't know what their editorial standards are like, and whether they are secondary sources in a strict sense.
Incidentally, the same goes for the last of the deleted sources, which appears to be authored by you.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet (I think) is that this draft is not written as an encyclopaedia article, but rather a how-to guide explaining the rules and the gameplay. As such, this is contrary to Wikipedia's objectives. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming platforms: AFAIK, one of the 5 gaming platforms is commercial (Board Game Arena), one is run by a university, and three are maintained as a pure hobby. Thus, only Board Game Arena makes money. They do this via premium accounts, but they do not get or give money from/to game inventors.
Sources: [1] says that the very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. I do trust that all 5 cited gaming platforms provide reliable information about Meridians, but I would not trust them when they advertise their own achievements.
My program: Yes, the pymerid.py program was written by me. It is open source, and I'm not making any money with it. However, if you think that it should not be mentioned on the Meridians page, that's perfectly fine with me.
How-to guide?: Before I started to create the Meridians article, I looked at similar Wikipedia articles that exist already. All of them have a section on rules, and Gomoku for example, also has an example game. There are certainly things that have to be improved in my first draft, but I don't think that we can expect a freshly created page to be perfect. Maybe someone from the Wiki Project Board and table games ([2]) could review the article and make suggestions how to improve it? RolfSander (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't know what went wrong with your latest comment, but it wiped out several of my recent replies, which I've had to restore manually. When replying to a thread, please just click on the 'reply' link at the end of it, rather than editing the source directly. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about this. I guess that we were editing this page simultaneously. I didn't know that I wasn't supposed to use the 'Edit' button. I will use 'reply' from now on. RolfSander (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 30 January 2024 review of submission by OmoAyan

I need help on how to fix page and move them from draft to live. I also don't know how to navigate better the page edit. OmoAyan (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OmoAyan: which draft are you referring to? Regardless, I recommend that you don't try to publish directly yourself, but instead let more experienced reviewers assess the draft and determine whether it is ready for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that you're referring to Draft:Israel Ayanwuyi, and I have hadded a header which will allow you to submit it for review.
But it is not ready for that yet. Your references are formatted so badly that I can't work out whether they are of any value or not: please read WP:REFB, and redo your references.
Please also note that almost the entire article should be based on what reliable sources, wholly unconnected with Ayanwuyi have published about him. Certainly a link to a site selling his book is utterly worthless for this purpose. (A review of the book, published in a major newspaper, might be helpful, if it talked about him, as well as about the book). ColinFine (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Etienneadaher

Please tell me why portfolio page was rejected? I will add more data if needed. Etienneadaher (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Etienneadaher: that's because there was no evidence of notability, and no indication of even basic noteworthiness. Please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform. If you wish to tell the world about yourself and your professional etc. achievements, try sites like LinkedIn. Also, see WP:AUTOBIO for reasons why no one should be writing articles about themselves. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 30 January 2024 review of submission by MicroSupporter

I’m not sure why this was rejected based on submissions from 2022 and before. Almost all the sources added are from 2023+. This includes LBC, Daily Express and b92. All of which are mainstream media. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MicroSupporter: this topic has gone through several speedy deletions and no fewer than three AfDs. Unless someone can demonstrate beyond any doubt that the subject is notable, there isn't much point in recreating the draft, as we cannot keep relitigating the matter at AfD ad infinitum. Additionally, I would encourage you to read and consider well the closing remarks in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is understandable but clearly there are more sources now than over a year and a half ago. What can be done to prove its notability? MicroSupporter (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:53, 30 January 2024 review of submission by Tropicus Chocoholica

Hi there, I seem to have lost my way around Wiki. I was trying to move a page to my namespace (I think that's what one should do if the page isn't ready for primetime?) so that I can "park it" and update it another day. Only I moved it to User: Semperis, which doesn't exist. Then I moved it to User: Tropicus Chocoholica (is that the right thing to do?), but in the process got a glimpse of history that someone else might've converted the page to a draft between my moves? Now I'm thoroughly confused and thought I'd reach out on how best to proceed before creating a tangled web of redirects. Sorry for the mess, and thank you in advance! Tropicus Chocoholica (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropicus Chocoholica: as you can see here, what happened was
  1. You moved this draft into the user space, and in so doing created a user page for a nonexistent user 'Semperis'
  2. UtherSRG rectified this by moving it into the draft space at Draft:Semperis (and for the record, this would have been the most appropriate location for it, as that is a viable article title should the draft be accepted)
  3. You then moved it back into the user space, this time creating your own user page; however, per WP:UP this is not an appropriate location for an article draft, or a correct use of a user page, hence...
  4. UtherSRG moved it again, this time to a subpage in your user space, where it remains at User:Tropicus Chocoholica/Semperis
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've now moved it back to the draft namespace which, as you note, is the correct location. @Tropicus Chocoholica: - UtherSRG (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 12.1.133.226

HI there, I have a question. I see that Ed Stetzer's page (who is a contemporary of David Fitch) has a lot less references and yet was still accepted. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Stetzer) Can you help us better understand how to get Dave's page accepted? 12.1.133.226 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If another article is undersourced, you are very welcome to improve its sourcing, or nominate it for deletion if appropriate sources do not exist. You don't have to, but people not doing so is why it is in that state. I see that another editor has now tagged Ed Stetzer as lacking sources and possibly failing notability. Note that that article has been around since 2011, so "accepted" simply doesn't apply. We are more careful about quality nowadays.
But that article has zero to do with the acceptability of your draft: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 30 January 2024 review of submission by BlakeIsHereStudios

I need some help writing this article as I am currently trying to remove unsourced information from it at the moment and add more information. Draft is open for anyone to edit. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication of passing WP:NCORP? Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 30 January 2024 review of submission by 98.97.114.252

I don't know why my article was rejected. 98.97.114.252 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not host how to guides. This is why your draft was rejected as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

04:25, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 92.99.181.18

Hi I am trying to understand why the articles were getting rejected. 92.99.181.18 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. Please read the messages left by reviewers carefully, these explain the issues with the draft. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Mustafdesam

how to improve it for submission Mustafdesam (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Matovu256

This is a real person that exists and so helpful to the Ugandan community Matovu256 (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matovu256 No one doubts that the person is real, but the sources you provided are not appropriate for establishing that this person meets the definition of a notable person, so the draft was rejected, meaning that it wil not be considered further, and finally deleted. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean he cannot be added on wikipedia!? What is required now? Matovu256 (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every person merits a Wikipedia article; this isn't a mere database of people that exist. Articles here summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Blogs are generally not appropriate sources, as they lack fact checking, editoral control, and other journalistic standards. Please review the definition of a notable person and if you have independent reliable sources that can be summarized and establish that this person meets that definition, let us know. Those would be things like news stories that discuss his influence or significance as the source sees it, not as he himself might see it(so no interviews, blogs, press releases, or annoucements of routine activities). 331dot (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 116.90.110.172

Portable Site Offices,Portable Houses,Portable Labor Camps,Portable Mosques,Portable Restrooms,Portable Storage,Portable Warehouse,Portable Staff Camps,Portable School,Portable shop Portable Log Cabin, Portable Storage Facilities,Portable Bathrooms,Portable Pantry,Portable Mess Halls,Portable Building,Portable Hanger,Portable Toilet Units,Portable Meeting Hall,Portable Water Tanks,Portable Joint Room,Portable Containers,Portable Hotel 

116.90.110.172 (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely portable refusal, since this is just a list of stuff and the draft is deleted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Infomanfromearth

what sort of sources and cites would make it go through, eg how many different sources. Infomanfromearth (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about number. It's about quality and purpose.
The purpose of a citation is to validate a statement about the subject of the article - nothing else. In order to do this it has to be a reliable source; and the majority of the article must come from sources which are also wholly unconnected with the subject.
A citation that does not mention the subject of the Wikipedia article - like many of yours - is a waste of everybody's time.
The way to write an article in Wikipedia is first to find several sources that are reliable, independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. If you can find these, then you write a summary of what they say about the subject. Nothing that the subject says, writes, creates, or does, is relevant unless some of those independent commentators have written about it. ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Lisapaulinet

Hi, I would like to publish my Labthink article on Wikipedia. I have disclosed that I work for Labthink on the talk page. My references are very good. I know there are other articles about companies on Wikipedia. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you. Lisapaulinet (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisapaulinet: the last logged action was decline (for promotionality), and you haven't edited the draft since then. Therefore my suggestion would be to edit it, addressing the decline reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisapaulinet: as for your "very good" sources, could you please tell us which of them provide significant coverage of the company itself? It's difficult to verify them, as they're almost all offline (are there really no online versions available?), but a quick glance suggests they cover all sorts of indirectly related topics, rather than the company directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll work on those points. Lisapaulinet (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Twentysumn

wondering if the subject has enough citations for publishing, and if not which ones are not credible? Twentysumn (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twentysumn: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
For future reference, BroadwayWorld, IMDb, and the NY Post are not considered reliable sources. You can find out more about specific publications at WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 31 January 2024 review of submission by 98.114.59.56

I wish for this article to become real. I feel Michael is a worthy enough voice actor to have his own to get to have his own Wikipedia page. 98.114.59.56 (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, your wish won't come true, on this occasion. This draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:06, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Dfrankow

To me, this page is clearly notable. It is a government agency that spends >$100 million per year, and is already mentioned on several pages on Wikipedia. I can find lots of articles referring to it from accepted media. See for example https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22minneapolis+public+housing+authority%22+site%3Astartribune.com&atb=v154-1&ia=web.

However, I cannot find any secondary sources that describe it. I know Wikipedia wants secondary sources, but people do not tend to write long reference articles about government agencies.

So, I fear it will not be accepted due to sources. Not sure what to do. Ideas? dfrankow (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dfrankow: you have submitted this draft for another review, and will get an assessment of notability sooner or later. Was there anything specific you wanted to ask in the meantime?
Please note that notability for organisations is defined in WP:ORG, and essentially depends on appropriate sources being available which can be summarised into an article. Being a public body, spending a lot of money, or being mentioned in other Wikipedia articles are not notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 31 January 2024 review of submission by Ngaihthang

Can you help with anything for this, please? Ngaihthang (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngaihthang: nothing doing; this draft has been rejected (after no fewer than 11 previous declines, I might add!), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


February 1

01:47, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Mya Project

Hi there, My name is Dalila Mya and I just created a page for my music project Mya Project - which has been declined right away for some copyright infringement. Since all the material on my page is my own creation, I would like to know what's the problem with my page. Thank you. Mya Project (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

op blocked indef. ltbdl (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:36, 1 February 2024 review of submission by McMi!!ian

Hello,

I am being accused of writing an advertisement for Storm Internet Services. I do not work for Storm Internet Services, it is a notable organization on its own (as notable as any of the organizations here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_internet_service_providers_in_Canada).

I am asking for assistance as I do not know how to adjust this article further in order to not be accused of advertising.

Thank you McMi!!ian (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@McMi!!ian: who has "accused" you, where, and when? All I could find was a comment in the draft saying that it is written in a promotional manner, which it is.
You say this is a "notable organisation", but there is no evidence of that. Notability doesn't mean 'well known locally' or 'one of the biggest in their sector' or even 'household name', etc.; notability means that the subject has been written or talked about in secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 1 February 2024 review of submission by Humaira28

Hi. I wanted to know why my page was declined? 

Humaira28 (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1201751252"