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 Mahendra Umesh Nayaka (talk | contribs) at 10:59, 12 July 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Ramaiah_Institute_of_Management_Studies). 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


July 6

01:03, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Shahidi Islam

An article of mine was recently deleted. I just wanted to know if it would be possible for me to edit it and re-submit it? To edit it I will need to have it returned to my account, and I can try to remove whatever offending sections there were.

Thank you,


Shahidi Shahidi Islam (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahidi Islam your sandbox was deleted for being promotional. If you'd like to recreate it, go ahead, but if its contents are promotional again, it will certainly be deleted again. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It was not intentional. Shahidi Islam (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It usually is not intentional, Shahidi Islam. But if you write about something you are familiar with, especially if it is something you have a connection with, it is hard for you to judge what will come over as promotional (that is why dwe discourage people from editing with a conflict of interest.
As a rule-of-thumb: once you have found your independent sources, you need to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them, or what you know about them. It is only interested in what the independent sources say about them. ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 6 July 2024 review of submission by ENZorina

I need help to improve the article i'm submitting.

Currently I'm working on an article about a special coins in Sri Lanka. As I'm on the island, owe this collection of real coins in use. The reason is that I've been digging information on this subject for a long time now, as there is almost nothing online. Ish. I love collecting coins and would be really happy to shine the light on the subject, the thing is that my submission is declines as it's lucking some info and references. How can i make it work? Ie i would be happy to send a request to the central bank of sri lanka, if needed to prove the relevance of my words, or please tell me what would be helpful?

many thanks, Evgeniia Zorina ENZorina (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ENZorina: it sounds like you may be engaging in original research and/or synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be primarily composed by summarising what reliable published sources have said about a subject, and then citing those sources as references so that the information can be verified by readers.
Bear in mind also that just because something exists, doesn't mean that it is automatically notable in the Wikipedia context. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina: I guess you decided to ignore all that, then, and just go ahead and resubmit your draft regardless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina, are there offline sources instead? You say you've been collecting information for a long time, which makes me think you might have a lot of sources that could be very valuable if they are suitable for Wikipedia. Sources can be online or offline, and can be in any language; the main thing is they need to fit WP:42, the "golden rule", which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I don't think the Central Bank would be suitable, but if you have books or articles written by coin historians or similar then they might be. Could you tell us where you got your information from - or at least a couple of places, if you have too many to go through at once? StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an official request to Central Bank of Sri Lanka in regards to 25 District Coins series of 10 rupees, hopefully they will respond with something that will suffice for wikipedia. The main source is CBLK, i will attach a link to this. https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/press/notices/notice_20141117e.pdf
not the best one tho. ENZorina (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be in Colombo on Monday, will pop in Currency Museum of Sri Lanka, would it be better to attach pictures of everything related to this series?
https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/about/bank-premises/economic-history-museum
I will also add this link.
https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/node/1778 ENZorina (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing
and if the offline proof is ok, what's the best way to send it all to you? ENZorina (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina: there should be no need to send anything to anyone. The sources can be offline (and for advice on citing them, see WP:OFFLINE), but they must be published. You going around a museum photographing things sounds again like original research to me. And photographing offline publications may well violate copyright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Considering we won't cite newspaper clippings due to copyright, it isn't "may well" violate copyright but "does" violate it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the book "Our People - Our Potential - Our Pride", published by Central bank of sri lanka to mark the launch of the special mint of Rs 10 coin series on the 25 Administrative Districts of Sri lanka
+ article in Sunday Times https://www.sundaytimes.lk/141123/sunday-times-2/one-head-and-25-tails-129013.html
this book is also on the list in here https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/publications/other-publications/other-publications
ENZorina (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina, please listen to what DoubleGrazing is telling you. What you need to find is something written by a scholar or historian, an expert in these coins, perhaps a book or a newspaper article published by a reputable publisher. You could look to see if the Currency Museum has any books on the topic - sometimes museums sell books with information about their collections, and maybe that could be used. You could also see if the Museum has cited any references on the information cards for their collection. Do not upload any photographs you take, though! Just look to see whether they are saying things like 'this information was found in Interesting Old Currency Book by Mr Coin Guy' - then you can try to find that book to see if it would be a good reference.
Maybe you already own books or other sources, since you wrote a draft about the coins. We need to know where all of the information in your draft came from, and you can show us by citing sources for each coin and bit of information. DoubleGrazing has given you the link to do that. If you are still not sure how to cite your sources after reading that, we can try to help - but we need to know where the information comes from first, so that we can be sure it's a source that follows Wikipedia's rules. StartGrammarTime (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the book "Our People - Our Potential - Our Pride", published by Central bank of sri lanka to mark the launch of the special mint of Rs 10 coin series on the 25 Administrative Districts of Sri lanka
+ article in Sunday Times https://www.sundaytimes.lk/141123/sunday-times-2/one-head-and-25-tails-129013.html ENZorina (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this book is also on the list in here https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/publications/other-publications/other-publications ENZorina (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

Updated the article

added official networks and information

removed unnecessary web pages

Help me add to wikipedia I have all the official data in the registry of the United States, Texas. Arahi991 (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: I have to say, this is getting rather tiresome, by my count it's the fourth time you're here saying this same thing, and completely ignoring the fact that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Furthermore, you still haven't responded to the paid-editing query on your talk page, or answered the question about your connection, if any, with Solyankich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arahi991: Everything I said in re the sources still holds true - the lot of them are worthless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Randomanon37

My submission was originally declined based on the lack of notability, the original article only had AnimeNewsNetwork as a source, I added 4 more after the initial decline (Natalie, PR Times, Oricon, Weekly Shonen Jump official site) which are the sources typically referenced for this type of article but still got declined, the reviewer incorrectly mentions I only added 1 more source. I should mention that the subject of my article already have a Japanese language page if that helps clear the confusion around the notability https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%87%91%E6%9C%AA%E6%9D%A5%E6%9D%AF Randomanon37 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined because it uses references from the creators themselves, you can remove them and resubmit. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. I removed the references from the creators and resubmitted. Hopefully, no new issues arise. Randomanon37 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Rajesh Kumar Noida

Hi, I want to create a page but my page decline. Plz suggest me why my page decline Rajesh Kumar Noida (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajesh Kumar Noida your draft was declined because 5 of the 6 sources sited are published by the university itself, and that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion at its current state. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:50, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Maximos2017

Hello. I have written an article on a notable person living in Cyprus. She is an actress but also a politician. I got a response within about a couple of hours of submitting the article. I have gone through the guidelines. The reason left by the person assessing my contribution was this: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. My question is how could a person review it in such a short time when the references that I have links to this person are mostly in Greek and Turkish as she lives in Cyprus???? 

Maximos2017 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maximos2017: that's something you will have to ask the reviewer. But in general terms, I can tell you it doesn't take two hours to review a draft, at least not in most cases. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming it would take longer if that person had gone through all the 63 citations I had? And whats more they deleted the citations!!! 46.199.207.225 (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know how long it takes to review a draft? Genuine question. Do you know what tools this reviewer uses, how fast they work, what they look for in a draft, whether they comprehend Greek and/or Turkish?
BTW, please log into your account when editing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know how long it takes I was asking in good faith actually…. The IMDB citation was not removed all the rest which were a mix of wikipedia links, newspaper and online citations from online media in Cyprus are what I cannot see anymore. So I guessed they were all removed Maximos2017 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maximos2017: a number of inline external links, which are not allowed, were removed, along with the IMDb citation, in a series of edits starting with this one by a different reviewer (as in, not the one who subsequently declined the draft). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. This is actually very helpful Maximos2017 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. The removal of the IMDb citation was perfectly reasonable, as it is almost never considered to be reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 15:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maximos2017: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
The overwhelming majority of your sources - which took me about an hour and a half to get thru - are not good. For a topic like this where sourcing requirements are stricter this is not good for the draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Technology research

Why my submitting project cancelled by team Wikipedia ? please solve this problem and may notify me. Project URL --https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft%3ASadik_Laskar&diff=1232958301&oldid=1232950817&variant=en Technology research (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Technology research: We don't accept promotional content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Tradelady2

Suzane Reatig is one of the most prominent women architects in the eastern United States and she has already been mentioned in a Wikipedia article about one of her most well known buildings. I cannot understand why Wikipedia editors keep saying a biographical article about her is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Is it because she's a woman? Because she is Jewish and was educated in Israel? I'm starting to get concerned about motives here. Please advise me on how to improve this article so that it can be posted in final. Tradelady2 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tradelady2: please don't start making assumptions, let alone hurling around slurs and accusations, of discriminatory or biased reviewing, unless you have pretty solid evidence to back that up.
Being "one of the most prominent women architects in the eastern United States" is not a notability criterion, nor is being mentioned in a Wikipedia article. The relevant notability guidelines are WP:ARCHITECT and WP:GNG, at least one of which must be satisfied, as evidenced by reliable sources. As this wasn't done, the draft was eventually rejected (over six months ago). If evidence is now available which wasn't considered at the time, you may appeal the rejection, by contacting the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My request for help was delayed by six months because I have been ill with a serious heart problem that halted my work on Wikipedia biographies of women.
In my view Ms Reatig more than meets the notability guidelines for an architect having received many awards for her work and having been recognized by name by prominent architectural critics from the Washington Post and the New York Times. This was all shown in the latest posted draft and I don't see why it is not sufficient. Perhaps you could find an editor who specializes in architects who could help me understand what more needs to be written. Tradelady2 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: a reviewer doesn't need to specialise in architects or architecture in order to review a draft on those topics. We assess the draft by reference to the relevant guidelines, pure and simple.
If by "the latest posted draft" you mean as it currently stands following your 2 April edit, then please note that that edit was several months after the draft was rejected on 12 December, and it is quite likely that no one has even looked at the draft since the rejection, other than you of course (and now me). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
All of your offline sources are missing their page numbers; this is required info in order to look up the source in an offline archive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all these comments sent so quickly. Before I attend a revision, I would like to respond to each one (using the footnote numbers) and ask for advice on how to proceed further in some situations:
  1. For footnote 1 I can only access this article in the Washington Post's Digital Archive which does not contain a page number (perhaps because the article was published 33 years ago?). It's available to subscribers and through libraries. Does that mean the source needs to be deleted?
  2. Footnote 2 referencing the Wikipedia article on the Metropolitan Church of D.C. was not intended to indicate a supportive source but simply to point to the relevant section of that long article. The same is true for Footnote 5. If this is not allowed, these two footnotes will be removed and only the "internal link" will be shown.
  3. For footnote 3 the page # is 2-37. I have no trouble accessing the article but I am a subscriber to New York Times and also have access through a public library. If the NYT archive is walled off for some people, does that mean I can no longer cite it?
  4. The Washington Business Journal article in footnote 4 is online only now and has no page number. It is available through public libraries. Does it need to be deleted?
  5. See comment for footnote 2
  6. Footnotes 6,7 & 9: Reatig is "running a one person architectural firm." Until recently she was the only licensed architect in the firm and I guess that's why it's called Suzane Reatig Architecture. Any awards given to that firm were really given to her.
  7. The link in footnote 8 is now bouncing to the home page instead of the list of awards. I'll try to figure out the problem and get it fixed.
  8. Footnote 10 is another NYT article available to me online with no page number. Does it need to be deleted?
  9. I agree that access to this WP article in footnote 11seems OK
  10. Footnote 12: See comment to footnote 4 above.
  11. I also can no longer access the Ebony Magazine article in footnote 13. So I will delete this source.
  12. In footnote 14, Reatig's contribution to making boring Washington D.C. more colorful is mentioned about 2/3 way through the article. I can delete this source if it doesn't seem sufficient.
  13. In footnote 15, Reatig's name on this list confirms her election to "fellow" of the American Institute of Architects, the highest honor her profession confers. If this doesn't indicate she and her work are recognized as "notable" I don't know what would and perhaps I should just stop this project now (which I will if you tell me this is a waste of time)!!
Tradelady2 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: In order:
  1. If it was published and someone has access to a hardcopy or scan of the source, one could get the page number from that. But the page number is hard-required for offline cites to periodicals and books.
  2. That is indeed not allowed. We do not consider ourselves a reliable source, and circular referencing is generally a bad idea in encyclopaedia articles anyway.
  3. All that matters is that someone can access the source. It doesn't matter that not everyone can. Add the page number.
  4. That source then needs to be redone using {{cite web}}, which doesn't require a page number parametre.
  5. (refer to reply 2)
  6. If she is indeed her firm in its entirety, then these sources should be good.
  7. You have two options here - try to find the source on the website as it currently is, or cite an archived version of the source via the Wayback Machine or similar. Either is acceptable (and the archived source is preferred since that's more resistant to link rot).
  8. (refer to reply 1)
  9. (moot)
  10. (refer to reply 4)
  11. Again, you could try and see if it got moved or archived, then cite it at its new/archived location.
  12. It isn't; the paragraph is basically just quoting/attributing claims to her. Anything she says, including attributable claims, isn't discussion of her.
  13. The issue is that fellowship isn't as major of a notability concern here compared to academics, so you may be better off ditching this source, since with the three awards in and the offline cites properly done I'd argue you have a good case for notability.
Does this help? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very helpful advice. Whether I can can implement it all is another question!
I did have a followup question on #13. Being elected a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects is a national professional recognition for senior American architects which is not at all the same as an academic fellowship which is generally for junior architects. In fact, for an architect, I think this would be the most important award or recognition by fellow professionals. Do you or other Wikipedia editors disagree? If so, again I don't think I should continue with this biography. Tradelady2 (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

01:23, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Heilige Nikolaus

The Article I've written for Wikipedia has been rejected becaues:This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. I don't quite know how to correct this. I've sited with links to newspapers, and websites, but...

I just don't know what is wanted. Heilige Nikolaus (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's at Draft:Mark Schultz (playwright). Drmies (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only secondary source I see is from the New York Times, for that Kesselring prize, and I cannot judge if a. that award is notable and b. that award bestows notability on the recipient. The rest is not from reliable secondary sources, and "Earth and Altar" looks like just another blog. Please see WP:RS. Oh, here is a review from the NYT that helps notability, but it's surrounded by a ton of unacceptable links and promotional text. The article looks like a resume. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:27, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 82.173.160.29

Landslides are a fascinating subject and Wikipedia even has a long list of landslides, but it seems that if there's no English text available, the landslide in question is considered to not have happened, eg. ignored by scientists.

I just spent several hours to translate

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordskredet_vid_Stenungsundsmotet

into

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Landslide_at_Stenungsund_junction&action=history

and I added 15 references, but sure enough, in stead of helping me to turn my draft into something worth publishing, somebody is trying to put my work on fire.

Who can please help to get this translation job finished? Help is not we destroy your work, so you can start all over again or Bring a lawyer to defend your attempt at helping Wikipedia I give up here 82.173.160.29 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor! I don't see anyone trying to "put your work on fire" - one editor did remove a stray weblink, but then promptly reverted themselves. All 15 references seem to still be there. Your draft has been declined for not having suitable references - is that what's upsetting you? If that's not it, could you try explaining to us?
Could I also very strongly suggest you not consider bringing lawyers into the process - we take legal threats very seriously, and you may be blocked if you say that you are intending to consult a lawyer over the matter. Using this page will be a much faster and more effective strategy to get your draft published, if you can find good sources! The sources can be online or offline, and can be in any language, but please keep in mind that English Wikipedia has some of the strictest referencing requirements to prove something is notable. If you are unsure about why your references were not considered suitable, I would be happy to go through them with you. Drmies is a very experienced reviewer, so there will be a reason the draft was declined this time. If you implement their feedback, your draft may well be approved next time. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, StartGrammarTime! Please allow me to clarify that "Bring a lawyer" was not to be taken literally. This was rather a sarcastic joke, as to express my frustration that several hours of work are just swiped off the table, for reasons I don't understand. Please read my defense below, written after a short night of sleep.
It is not like quick clay landslides are a minor issue in Norway and Sweden. Such landslides have caused disasters in the past, claiming dozens of lives. Stenungsund had a narrow escape here, with no fatal victims. If the landslide would have pushed a little further, it would have taken down houses with sleeping inhabitants in them. The question about what caused the landslide is halfway being answered, but further research may cause the Stenungsund landslide to be in the Swedish newspapers again, maybe a couple of times.
One should also consider that E6 motorway is the main connection between Norway and Sweden. It's like you cut off I95 on the American east coast. The Swedish king would not have showed up at the reopening of a local village road. To claim that the cutting off of such an important road, with a detour that lasted almost 9 months and caused a great disturbance in local villages, would be just quoting your local village newspaper is a thing that I fail to understand.
Please beware that questions about how long this E6 motorway will last until the next landslide strikes are still open; There seems to be on ongoing minor scandal about missing geological research that should have been performed before even building the E6 motorway. Many sources are in Swedish. It could have been easy to swamp this article with 20 more references, from newspapers that do have serious reputations inside Sweden, but I deliberately chose to quote mostly English language sources, with an exception for Swedish if that source had pictures of video that is very telling for the story.
This landslide may not have been in The Guardian in London, or in The Washington Post, but it was noticed by CNN, also an American news chain with a reputation. If making it into The Guardian in London, or into The Washington Post were to be the criteria for being a notable event, we could delete half of the articles in Wikipedia. I think I have even seen an article in Wikipedia's policy, that we should all work together to avoid that Wikipedia becomes a project with a perspective centered around one single country, as Wikipedia is a worldwide project. This is what I find so valuable about Wikipedia: Here I am, living my life in Europe, but whenever I am curious enough to look something up that is far outside my daily life, Wikipedia is the treasury that has it all, even if many articles seem not very notable to me.
I don't understand what is expected from me. I will definitely not invest more time in an article that gets refused anyway. I still think that I have laid the foundations for an article that needs some editing and has the potential to meet all of Wikipedia's criteria, but I have a life outside of Wikipedia and will not waste any more energy. Wikipedia is said to be a community project, but all that I see happening is people being strongly discouraged to move a finger to contribute, because there will always be some editor, well respected within his or her own small circle, to take down any effort to contribute. If they cannot find valid reasons to do that, they will lure you into an edit war and ban you from Wikipedia, as if that would make me cry. If you feel like it, go ahead and ban my IP for life, in all languages that I have edited in. It would save me tons of time!
Hereby I will put my "baby" in a crib and let the river decide if the baby will float or drown. Anyone feeling tempted to edit my article about the landslide at Stenungsund junction, please go ahead. I don't care if my IP is registered to reflect the time I invested. I would just be delighted if this article would get it's translation from Swedish into English, in any sort of form. You might even argue that an English version could be much shorter than what I had written so far, because some details are not as relevant to the outside world, as they are for people in Sweden. That does not mean that one could convince me that a quick clay landslide that has been a revolving issue in Swedish newspapers over the last 8½ months is not an event notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia in some form. There is a red link in the list of landslides on Wikipedia. I hope somebody will make that link turn blue! 82.173.160.29 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion continues at the "Teahouse" and the good news is that user CommissarDoggo has jumped in and started to help me. Thank you/tack så mycke! :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse 82.173.160.29 (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Boris Fevraly

Hello, i understand that a made some mistakes in creating draft, and now i don't have a permission to fix it, how can i correct page? Boris Fevraly (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boris Fevraly! Did you create the draft by copying and pasting text from another website (or from a book, or a newspaper, or something else you read)? That is not allowed on Wikipedia. It is called a copyright violation, and can get both you and Wikipedia in trouble if it is not deleted immediately.
If you want to try again, you must make sure that whatever you write is in your own words - you must not copy someone else's words. There is more information on your talk page that should help you understand what you need to do if you start writing a draft again. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote text by my self, but, as i understand, some links was incorrect. And now i don't have a permission to fix it (it looks like article delated), is it possible to return article back? Boris Fevraly (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what you mean by returning the article, @Boris Fevraly. It is not possible to return the draft you already had, because that one has been deleted due to a copyright violation. If you have rewritten the draft, in your own words, without using any words from any of the links, then you could make a new draft.
Please don't take this as an insult - I only want to help - writing new articles about alive people is very, very difficult. It is the hardest thing to do on English Wikipedia. You need very good English skills to be able to read and understand all the rules about it. I'm worried that you will have a very bad time and be frustrated, and not want to edit Wikipedia ever again. Are there other things on Wikipedia you would like to do, so you can get some practice before trying to write this draft again? Even writing drafts about things like notable places, or books, or artwork, is much easier than writing about a person. StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:35, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 79.199.170.144

I was told that submissions take months to review. This one was reviewed within hours. I suspect deliberate attempts to sabotage the entry. It was rejected claiming a lack of reliable sources. The sources are all completely reliable, mostly peer-reviwed articles and patent applications. Furthermore there is an interview on youtube from a respectable podcast series. Of course more sources will accumulate over time, but this is a first entry and the person in question is a respected scientist with numerous publications, with affiliations at Stanford and Berkeley, plus she is important as the co-founder and president on a non-profit research organisation. The non-profit has many other respected scientists as board members, it has 100s of followers on social media, it has given out stipends to scholars in the past, etc. - There is no reason to reject the entry as such, unless it is a witch hunt by envious competitors. If individual facts are not well enough documented, they can be deleted, or there could be a top entry about fixing this. Please address this problem, it seems to be a classic wikipedia attempt at sabotage. 79.199.170.144 (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft was correctly declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) for insufficient referencing. For example, the entire 'Early Life and Education' section is entirely unreferenced, which is wholly unacceptable in an article on a living person (WP:BLP). Also, some of the sources are cited in a way that doesn't help verify the draft contents: eg. #2 merely points to the root of a web domain, and when I click on the link it doesn't even work; #3 is an interview; and it's not clear what #6 is. In short, the referencing requires a lot more work.
Sometimes drafts get reviewed in a matter of minutes, sometimes this can take months – don't try to read any great conspiracies into that. And certainly don't start hurling around sabotage accusations, unless you have solid evidence to back them up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Judo Therapist

They asked me to add more reliable sources. I added World Health Organization page https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/259085/9789290618188-eng.pdf?sequence=1, and Japanese Government website https://elaws.e-gov.go.jp/document?lawid=345AC1000000019_20220617_504AC0000000068 I don't know what to do anymore. Please help. The English is my second language. Judo Therapist (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Judo Therapist: the sources should actually support the information in the draft, enabling the reader to see where each piece of information came from, and allowing the contents to be verified. Now you have grouped all the citations together in three groups, leaving most of the draft unsupported. Also, where and how you're citing your sources seems rather pointless: eg. the start of the draft says judo therapist, followed by nine citations – what are they supporting there? And why do you need so many? You should only ever need one citation to support one statement made; two at most, if the statement is particularly contentious or significant. Any more than that, and you start to get into WP:REFBOMB territory. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Theuserwhowrites

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia, and I recently attempted to create an article on the 'Impact of Technology on Modern Travel Agencies,' which unfortunately got rejected. Could you please provide me with advice on improving my writing style and any general suggestions for creating better articles in the future? I'm particularly interested in understanding how to better source information, maintain neutrality, and format articles correctly. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Theuserwhowrites (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft reads rather like the start of a school project/essay. Your sources are poor, blogs are very rarely considered to be reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what several reliable independent sources have said about a subject - nothing more. It should never contain any argumentation or conclusions, except possibly a summary of arguments or conclusions set out in a single reliable independent source. It should not even attempt to synthesise conclusions from different sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:34, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga

Hello,

I would like to submit more references for the subject and also make the article more notable as i have more notable references. Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga You should discuss this with the rejecting reviewer. Alternatively, start the draft again in a new draft - Draft:Nicholas Omonuk (new) - completely from the bottom up. Or do both things.
"Notable references" is an interesting term. Do oyu mean "References with prove Omomuk to be notable"?
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Youtube is deprecated as a reference, and not particularly useful as an external link. Currently you have six citations from four sources. Broader sourcing is better. Those six citations span eight lines of text. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before the question is asked, I should probably pre-emptively clarify an apparent contradiction between this reply and my earlier one from a few days ago. The author, then, asked "Should i restart the whole process again since it has been rejected.", which I interpreted (possibly incorrectly) as the intention to duplicate the contents of the rejected draft and submit it as 'new', to which I said no. Now the advice from @Timtrent is to start a new draft with entirely new content. I believe both pieces of advice are correct, and not contradictory. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 7 July 2024 review of submission by S-Aura

Hello! Wikipedians, please recheck the draft Werner_Stiehler it was translated from German Wikipedia. Although it was thoroughly reviewed and approved on the German site. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S-Aura: please don't post the same question in multiple places; I've just responded to this on your talk page, only to find that you've asked the same here.
Two sources, each once cited, is nowhere near enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, or to support the draft contents (especially in the case of a living person, per WP:BLP).
Whether there exists an article on this subject in the German-language Wikipedia (and whether or not it was "thoroughly reviewed", which we don't know) is neither here nor there, as each language version is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements. To be accepted here, the draft will need to have substantially better referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You must acknowledge the German original as the source, see WP:HOWTRANS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Oneequalsequalsone

Hi, not sure what else I need to do to get this article on mainspace? I think this person is a notable and important British journalist and author. I could add more detail to the draft but I think these sentences are enough to showcase his qualifications Oneequalsequalsone (talk · contribs) 11:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oneequalsequalsone: you haven't even submitted this draft, so that would be the first step in getting into the main space.
Not that there's much point in doing that yet, as there is no evidence that this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST. Two author profiles and one article penned by him do not notability make. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Taivur Islam

I wash about to upload my picture Taivur Islam (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivur Islam: don't; Wikipedia is not a social media platform where you can tell the world about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO). Try LinkedIn or similar. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 2A00:A040:1A3:CE9A:F9C4:129D:39C4:479D

publish that page cuh 2A00:A040:1A3:CE9A:F9C4:129D:39C4:479D (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources to support its content. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Kapyidu

Hello, I am trying to submit an article for creation about a disabled woman artist. User SafariScribe has rejected the article three times in less than a month with inaccurate reasons. The reasoning given is that the subject does not have reliable sources, however the subject's art is cited by multiple independent, non-interview, secondary, reliable sources. This repeated rejection without adequate explanation is beginning to feel like harassment. Is there anything I can do? Thank you for any explanation you can offer. Kapyidu (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kapyidu I can see why you say that about references. Regrettably only a very few of them are useful in verifying any notability.
Book sales sites fail completely and are not useful references. They should be removed. They constitute advertising.
Interviews with Sweeney have limited or zero value
Beware reviews of her books. Almost always they are not about her, but are about the book
I think that leave three promising references from which you can build.
It isn't harrassment. If it were we would be handling it. It is, perhaps, not the most helpful set of reviews I have seen, though. They are correct, but might have been worded more fully in the comments 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kapyidu, I apologize if my actions came across as harassment. I understand how frustrating it can be when your draft is declined. Welp, I noticed your question in the decline notification but was busy at the time, so my bad, and I'm sorry for not responding sooner. @Timtrent has provided an explanation, and I will let another editor review the draft. Additionally, please always/don't fail to consult the reviewer or the help desk before resubmitting a "declined draft" if a reason is given in the decline box. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 20:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the sources,it might be the case that the book Brittle Joints is notable but not the author? Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply yes. The book is notable, at least starring in up to three independent reviews. @Kapyidu, I think you should create the book's draft either, while the author's link redirects there. After some while, the author may then be notable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kapyidu You may find this to be strange, that a book can be notable if the author is not, or that an author can be notable but their book is not. It happens often, and always causes surprise
Your job is to decide which you wish to write about. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and discussion. This does not seem correct to me.

WP:BASIC states “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No where does it say “non-interviews” but even by that standard and by Timtrent’s reading, she has significant coverage in three (multiple) secondary sources in major newspapers and comics publications. She therefore passes WP:BASIC and qualifies as notable. No further qualifier is needed.

However, additionally, she is also an graphic narrative creator. Subject is notable for writing the only existing graphic memoir about an extremely rare disease, which follows the idea and spirit of WP:CREATIVE #2 “The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Furthermore, Subject also passes #4.c “won significant critical attention” as provable by the many reviews including from Publisher’s Weekly. Graphic Narrative is not Hollywood, significant does not mean an Oscar. Therefore in addition to qualifying by the standards of WP:BASIC, subject also passes WP:CREATIVE twice in her field as a Graphic Narrative Author. Subject is notable and warrants a page.

I will also simply note that Wikipedia has documentable bias against approving articles of women, as for example noted here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14791420.2017.1386321?journalCode=rccc20 Kapyidu (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been declined a number of times perhaps you could list the three sources here that give significant coverage? You are of course free to move it yourself to main space where it would be at risk of WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bias will endear you not, the report you link to above from 2017 documents problems with the creation of an article Centre for Women, Ageing and Media which was deleted via an WP:AFD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre for Women, Ageing and Media (2nd nomination) 9 years ago, I fail to see the relevance to your poorly sourced biography here? Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that this comment says “your” poorly sourced article as opposed to “a” poorly sourced article, which suggests a personal attack.

The mention of bias is relevant because the article was rejected three times without explanation and without response to questions by the same user. This user has also just rejected that article without ability to be re-submitted while we are in the middle of a discussion.

Wikipedia is intended to be objective, and endearing shouldn’t be necessary to get an article approved.

User TimTrent stated that three resources qualified.

If the article cannot be approved, then it cannot be approved. But this does not seem right to me by the stated qualifications of Wikipedia, and I find it concerning that questions are provoking what seems to be attacks and retribution.

Kapyidu (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 7 July 2024 review of submission by Gabriel601

There was no comment left after declining. I need more insight on how the page article can be improve. I saw a lot of reference but i need to know clearly does the 8 reference provided doesn’t meet the WP:GNG. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601: there doesn't have to be comments with the decline; the decline notice speaks for itself.
The sources cited are a mix of routine business reporting and churnalism (and one 'page not found'), none of which contributes towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm what do you mean by (one page not found). Would like to know more or you can make a contribution by adding or removing what you meant and I will see that from the edit history. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 May I suggest you check each of your references yourself, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Will do that. Just wanted to know if the 8 reference are not useful. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 You need to decide whether your draft is about the company or the person 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601, IMO there is a straightforward though uncertain case that this subject might not be notable based on the sources. How can a Dubai businessman have sources of a Nigerian nature when there's no connection mentioned in the article? PS. This is just my opinion and does not affect the writing of the draft. Also, when evaluating sources, please refer to the website's name accurately (e.g., "gyardian.ng" as "The Guardian" (Nigeria), not "guardian.ng" as "The Washington Post"). Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well understood @SafariScribe. But would like to make a point as well. Example, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum who is the president of Dubai is being talked about on the Nigerian newspaper because his business inline is associated with Nigeria. Ulugbekhon Maksumov is being talked about on the Nigerian newspaper because his business of collaborating with the Nigerian government in delivering amour vehicles is well known. Few days ago he appeared on the Nigerian national TV AIT which made me found more interest in writing about the subject. Your reason for the decline was absolutely right. I just wanted to understand more as no comment was left. But now i clearly understand and would check if it can be addressed while i make my research on Google. Regarding referring to the website name accurately. Thank you very much as I would be very careful on that. Peace & love. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 7 July 2024 review of submission by 69.7.65.195

My article has been rejected twice. I have several unique references attached to the article and removed anything from Facebook, etc. What is the issue with article publication? 69.7.65.195 (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. There is no indication Josh meets our notability criteria for musicians, which you can find here. Qcne (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and Amazon, IMDb, Bandcamp, YouTube, Discogs and blogs are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

04:07, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Mohsenmarjmand

Hi, 

   I have cited all the authentic references just like the Persian vesion of the article. Unfortunately, the article is still being declined. I no not know what the issue is now. I would appreciate it if you helped me.

Kind Regards, Mohsenmarjmand (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsenmarjmand: have you read any of the decline notices and the accompanying comments? I'm asking because I already pointed out that the main body of the draft is entirely unreferenced, which is completely unacceptable in an article on a living person. That was two reviews ago, and I now find it's still unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I referenced all the items in Awards and Bibliography sections. But regarding intro and biography sections, I do not know what I should reference! Can I reference to the persian version of the article? Can you please help me in this regards?
Thanks Mohsenmarjmand (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mohsenmarjmand: this is one of the big challenges in translating (which is what I assume you have done, but don't know) content from other language versions of Wikipedia. It is up them to decide what can be accepted to their language version, but here on the English-language Wikipedia articles are subject to our policies and requirements. And in what comes to referencing and notability, our requirements are stricter than in any other language version that I'm aware of. You will therefore have to do potentially a lot of research to find sources that support the contents as we require, and ultimately to remove content that cannot be appropriately supported.
As for what needs to be supported, the simple answer is – pretty much everything. You don't need to support 'sky is blue' type statements, but anything potentially contentious (ie. where the reader might conceivably ask "where did this come from" or "how do we know that's true", let alone "I doubt that, prove it!") has to have an inline citation next to it, and the more extraordinary the statement, the more extraordinary the evidence needed to support it. Also, for privacy reasons, all personal and family details must be clearly supported, starting with the DOB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for concise reply. I got it. I will try to reference all non-obvious content in the body. Mohsenmarjmand (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Gracewith

I have provided a lot of reliable sources, in fact, a few of them are government portals that authenticate the information provided by for the page creation of Gyan C Jain. He is a Padma Shree awardee and that should be more than enough to validate his presence in addition to that I have shared a lot more information from reliable sources, still the page is getting rejected for vague reasons. Could you please check again and help me with the same? Gracewith (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracewith: putting aside the question of whether a Padma Shri award should confer automatic notability, it seems we have two different Gyan Chand Jains both claiming to be the 2002 recipient, Draft:Gyan C. Jain and Gyan Chand Jain. Looks like among other things we need to get to the bottom of which of these is the actual recipient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I wouldn't say your sources are particularly good. You cite all sorts of stuff, from bookshops to YouTube clips to website home pages and other sources that don't really seem to support the information in this draft. That leads me to think this was most likely correctly declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for Gyan C Jain I have provided enough proof of him being the padma Shree Awardee in 2002 including certificates, youtube videos etc. Also, but other than being a Padma Shree, he is also a active chairman of BPB publication among other eduction institutes. Infact the youtube videos are another evidence of being felicitated by the government of India and Delhi. I have also shared an image of him receiving the Padma Shree by the president of India.
Additionally, the links of bookshops i have shared to showcase the books he has written and published. The website pages that i have shared are also to cite his position as chairman or executive member or founder at various prestigious institutes. And all the websites has his name mentioned.
What more can be added, as there is already enough documentation i have shared, but still getting rejected. Unfortunately, I don't have many media coverages. There are couple one is in print and i have share a picture and another a media coverage by Your Story where he is mentioned. Gracewith (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Tjiundje

I want to know but how? What kind of issues do I have? Tjiundje (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tjiundje: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you have zero independent sources discussing the topic and zero indication that they pass the criteria at WP:GNG plus having " over 2 thousand Subscribers on YouTube" is NOT an indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I understand that. Thank you for your feedback. Tjiundje (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:06, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Allewikiwriter

My article keeps getting rejected and I have put a lot of effort into researching and related all reference list and revised it multiple times, making sure it meets the 4 criteria for the sources. The last reviewer rejected my article and asked me to remove references that are not "reliable" without specifying which references are those. I have written and asked for a review and clarification yet no response for 2 weeks. Can someone assist me to improve this draft? Allewikiwriter (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allewikiwriter Note that the draft has been declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell of the existence of a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely reporting the routine business activities of the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. The vast majority of companies do not merit Wikipedia articles, as most sources discuss their routine activities(like the release of a product, commencement of operations, financial reports, etc.)
If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be declared, please see the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Greenonion10

I am wondering why this page keeps getting declined, and how much more information needs to be added. Greenonion10 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenonion10: it's not a question of adding more information, it's supporting the information that is there better, and also demonstrating that the subject is notable according to the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage (not just passing mentions, statistics, 'profiles', routine match reporting, etc.) in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback. That's why I added a media section to mention articles, podcasts, news coverage but it still got denied. It's just confusing because sometimes I will see Wiki pages with like 2 lines of information lol Greenonion10 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:05, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Is2024

Hello,

The reason I received for the article being rejected is that it is not supported by reliable sources.

I understand that some of the pictures were not sourced properly, however I believe that the sources I used for the article itself are reliable, as they are mainly articles from foundations (Yad Vashem and Shoah Foundation) and from an University (The University of Texas at Dallas).

Is there any area that I need to change specifically? Is2024 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Is2024: sources 1, 3 and 8 are the subject talking about their life. First-person accounts may or may not be reliable, but they can only support straightforward facts, such as date of birth etc., not entire sections as is the case here. Source 2 just supports the statements about how the Nazis treated Jews during WW2. Put those aside, and suddenly half the draft is unreferenced. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have especially strict referencing requirements, and this just needs more work on that front. That's my reading of it, anyway, after a quick scan-through. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 8 July 2024 review of submission by ArborChamp

Hello,

I am not sure how the links provided are not acceptable. They are a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Can you please elaborate further. ArborChamp (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArborChamp: I can't check two of the sources, as they're not available in Europe, and one source returns a 404, but the ones I did manage to see were mostly a mix of passing mentions, routine business reporting, primary sources, ones where Steed was commenting on things rather than being the subject himself, and a few pieces that looked an awful lot like churnalism. We want to see significant coverage, directly of Steed and not of his various business ventures or other initiatives, in secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject (meaning, not prompted, induced, sponsored, paid, fed information by, or otherwise 'encouraged' by Steed or his PR/comms team). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Akaayu

Hello Sir I Created draft on Army Law College but it was not accepted for article creation because of some reason. So can you please suggest were to edit I am little bit confused. Akaayu (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaayu: this draft is almost entirely supported by the organisation's own website and other primary sources, which do not establish notability per WP:ORG. The couple of secondary sources that there are, are just routine business reporting. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the secondary sources links in the reference tab and they are notable website. And some few things from it's own website like fee structure and other stuff. What is wrong with that you can google it also. So please help me to get article published Draft:Army Law College. Akaayu (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Akaayu Having read your response here and examined the article, but not the quality of referencing, I have left a comment on the draft itself for you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sir I will do that Akaayu (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I have done changes you can check it and verify the Draft:Army Law College Akaayu (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Sylvan1971

After a great deal of constructive dialog and corresponding revision, the editor with whom I have been corresponding appears to be busy elsewhere. in Sirdog's last note he continued to dispute the notability of the subject. I responded substantively, no response. I need a third party opinion as to the notability and clearance to move this into mainspace (which I prefer not to do unilaterally). Our dialog is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sylvan1971#c-Sirdog-20240531033300-Sirdog's_reply

Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971 I see this draft as a list of stuff concealed by prose. The references are WP:CITEKILL, and I feel in needs a rewrite based on the final choice of references. Citekill has to go if it is to move forward, thus I suggest you either engage in a total rewrite, or allow it to fade away. I cannot tell from the content if Bliss passes WP:BIO
To aid you, I have two things, first referencing needs:
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
This is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.
And second a guide in this essay, one of many on article creation. Please embrace the process within it. I suggest you treat the current draft as a learning experience, and create Draft:Laura Bliss (two), working on it quietly and diligently and not relying on anything in the prior draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the prompt response. Want to be sure you understand NONE sources cited are self published. None of the subject's work is self published. i will be review for unnecessarily duplicated citations. Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sylvan1971 Any interview with the subject is a primary source, however, because it is what she says. We have no interest in what she says. We are interested in what is said about her. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sylvan1971 Stories written by her are also what she says. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have not, please review the extensive dialog at User talk:Sylvan1971#c-Sirdog-20240421053400-Your submission at Articles for creation: Laura Bliss (April 21) I have rewritten the article several times in response to this and other editors' comments. Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sylvan1971 you also need to declare your conflict of interest. S0091 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did in February of this year. Sylvan1971 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sylvan1971 apologies. I do see it is clearly stated on the draft's talk page. I will add a comment to the draft so editors/reviewers know to look there. Most often it is declared on editor's User page but the talk page is acceptable as well. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 8 July 2024 review of submission by SageOst2024

I don't really understand what the things I need to do are for this page? Can I have some more in depth help with the step by step? SageOst2024 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SageOst2024: iNaturalist isn't a usable source (circular reference; it pulls from Wikipedia). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on identification from naturalists that know what they are saying, with sources sited should count as useable though. I might be able to dig something up if that is allowed. SageOst2024 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SageOst2024: Your draft was declined, not rejected; feel free to keep finding sources. And literally the entirety of the iNaturalist source is reused Wikipedia content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep finding sources. just a note:there are certain specified observations that people use non Wikipedia related articles to site, to prove species valid. additionally, inat uses plants of the world online for their database as proof of whatever is on Wikipedia when discussing plants (which we obviously are not). For this reason i will deep dive more and get better sources! thank you for your help! SageOst2024 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 8 July 2024 review of submission by PaintPress

Can you please point out which specific claims need referencing? PaintPress (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaintPress: As a rule, everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, failing that, removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what specifically needs citation in the article? What in it can be challenged? PaintPress (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaintPress: Answers:
  • "[Garcia] eventually became the curator [of the Computer History Museum] focusing on computer graphics, music, art, and video games." - Source?
  • "He remained with the museum through 2019." - Source?
  • "In 2001, [Garcia] joined the programming team for the Cinequest film festival, becoming the co-head of short film programming." - Source?
  • "Garcia himself was nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer from 2007 through 2013." - Source? (The source here is too sparse and thus useless for notability and for biographical claims.)
  • "James Bacon became co-editor in 2008 and Vanessa Applegate joined in 2014[.]" - Sources?
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti

what is double grazing Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti It is the eating of grass from a field twice instead of once. What did you think it was? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no human being he can not eat grass instead of healthy food 182.186.23.93 (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti, @DoubleGrazing is the name that a particular editor has chosen for their Wikipedia account. If you look over this page, you will see that they are one of the most prolific responders to questions here. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Wyneep

I just submitted my first draft, which was declined by the Articles for Creation, and was told that it sounded more like an advertisement. Are there any words I should look out for when editing to prevent this tone from coming across? Are there some strategies I can use when editing to make sure my draft sounds more neutral? Wyneep (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“historic victory has been a driving force behind her continued advocacy for the rights of illegitimate children.” and “She takes pride in her role as a mother and strives to show other women that regardless of whether they come from traditional or nontraditional families, they can pursue their goals and advance their careers.” are two examples there is much more. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti

How Can I Provide Verified information about my profile Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti: You don't. We're an encyclopaedia, not social media. We have no use for profiles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 8 July 2024 review of submission by Km302427

Hello! I wanted to check on my submission to see if there are any issues with the draft. It got declined in March so I edited it based on the notes I received. I received a message on LinkedIn today saying that I should tell this person if everything looks good to be published. I responded that it looks good and they responded asking for my WhatsApp number. Is this a scam or real? It was outside of Wikipedia but they linked to the draft of the page. Km302427 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scam; end all communications with them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


July 9

13:58, 7 July 2024‎ review of submission by Ndmmeyhhsn

My submission was declined on 7 July 2024 by SafariScribe (talk), because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". Can you please be more specific as to which sources you consider to be "unreliable", or which facts you feel are not adequately supported? There are countless reliable sources and references given, as well as a listing of 41 published works in print. My submission is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marc_Tedeschi . Thank you. Ndmmeyhhsn (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ndmmeyhhsn: As a rule, everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable.
  • "Tedeschi was born in Flemington, New Jersey[...]" - Source?
  • "[Tedeschi] graduated from Hunterdon Central Regional High School in 1974." - Source?
  • "He holds an AAS degree in Photography from the Rochester Institute of Technology (1976)[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]BFA degree in Design from the Kansas City Art Institute (1981)[...]" - Source?
  • "Tedeschi began his professional arts career in 1973 as a freelance photographer for the New York Times and other smaller publications[...]" - Source?
  • "[Tedeschi] was a designer with various firms, most notably HNTB Architects in Kansas City (1980–1981)[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]and Landor Associates in San Francisco (1982–1986, and intermittently 1995–1997)." - Source?
  • "Tedeschi began studying martial arts in 1974 under Joseph Jennings[...]" - Source?
  • "He moved to San Francisco in 1981, where he later trained extensively in Hapkido, Taekwondo, Jujutsu, and Judo." - Source?
  • "His primary martial arts teachers[...]" - One source for each one. (There is no need for four sources on a claim.)
Lastly, we do not need an exhaustive bibliography. A "greatest hits" selection is preferred, ideally those which have been reviewed in academia or the news. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I interviewed the subject, Marc Tedeschi, back in 2023. Many of your bulleted points were verified by me in public records, birth certificates, diplomas from high school and colleges, interviews with others who knew him, etc. How should I reference such sources? Should I upload copies of them to a website, such as the Internet Archive @ archive.org (assuming Tedeschi would even give me permission to do that)? Much of his work history is common knowledge in the design profession, and included in some of the design magazines, annuals, and exhibitions already listed under "Publications". Should I reference some those sources under "References"? Thanks. Ndmmeyhhsn (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ndmmeyhhsn: You don't. Such sources would not help for notability or to meet the more stringent sourcing requirements for biographical claims. There's a reason we generally recommend finding sources first, then writing an article based off what they explicitly say. Also, being common knowledge "in his design profession" means nothing as Wikipedia's audience is not his peers, but Joe Blow from San Antonio. Inside-baseball knowledge does a Wikipedia article no good unless you have hardcopy to back it up. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:09, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid

Please review this page, I've been waiting a while for it to get approved. Rincemermaid (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid please be patient. We don't do on-request reviews. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:30, 9 July 2024 review of submission by SLMSLMJS

To verify if the draft is complete. Thank you. SLMSLMJS (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SLMSLMJS: The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This looks like a research essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:06, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Cathriewe1

I created the Victra page, but it's frequently rejected. I've maintained all Wikipedia terms, but it's still being rejected. May I know the reasons? Cathriewe1 (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cathriewe1: The draft is nothing but a list of acquisitions with no indication of what makes Victra notable. (M&A coverage is considered run-of-the-mill and not significant enough to help for notability.) What is your connexion to Victra? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came across an interesting topic, which is why I created the page. Additionally, I have added notable information from several reputable sites. Cathriewe1 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cathriewe1: Let's test that assertion, then. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:56, 9 July 2024 review of submission by 2404:3100:140D:FBD2:ACE5:F6FF:FE71:9EDF

Please review this article 2404:3100:140D:FBD2:ACE5:F6FF:FE71:9EDF (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot, as the draft has been rejected. None of the sources establish notablity, and the draft is promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Tincee Hema

Hello, I am writing here seeking some assistance in understanding the reason for rejection of the submitted draft. The article I am trying to submit is for a well known malayalam film director - Ullas Chemban. I have included all the available legitimate references about him in the draft. And the references has more elaborate details about him and his work. So not sure what specifically needs to be added for the draft to be published. It would be much appreciated if you can give me a more specific feedback on what else is missing with regards to significant coverage. Thank you very much! Appreciate your help !!! Tincee Hema (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tincee Hema the draft has been declined, not rejected. (rejected means that it cannot be resubmitted) The sources are about his movies rather than him, and are therefore not significant coverage. The references are also not properly formatted and cluttered at the bottom, see Help:Referencing for beginners. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response ! Will check. Tincee Hema (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tincee Hema: Your sources aren't helpful. Two are reviews of a single movie; the other two are clearly labeled as interviews in the URL. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response ! Tincee Hema (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Non so che nome scegliere

Why was it rejected?!?!?!? Non so che nome scegliere (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we already have an article on the topic here UEFA Euro 2024. Theroadislong (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Yes but the system does not make me edit it!!! Non so che nome scegliere (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UEFA Euro 2024 is protected to prevent vandalism, but you can request an edit at Talk:UEFA Euro 2024. Wikishovel (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Non so che nome scegliere: that's because that article is semi-protected, which means that your account needs to be four days old to edit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:38, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio

My article got rejected but it wasn't offensive nor it was a hoax or such stuff Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paolo Maldini è il miglior difensore della storia del calcio: this is not a viable encyclopaedia article draft (and I think you know it); please stop now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Metrixpk

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I'm reaching out on behalf of Metrix Pakistan, a notable organization in Pakistan focused on youth empowerment, education, and community development. Recently, an article about Metrix Pakistan was created on Wikipedia, but it was promptly rejected due to concerns about notability and reliability of sources. We at Metrix Pakistan are surprised and concerned by this decision, as our organization has a significant impact in Pakistan and has collaborated with government entities, educational institutions, and international organizations. Our work has been recognized and reported by reputable media outlets and sources. We kindly request a reassessment of the article, as we believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. We would appreciate it if an experienced editor could review the article and provide guidance on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards. We look forward to your response and assistance in showcasing Metrix Pakistan's contributions to the global community.

Best regards,

Metrix Pakistan 

Metrixpk (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Metrixpk: the draft has been reviewed by experienced editors, found wanting, and consequently been rejected.
You must make a paid-editing disclosure before you edit any further. I will post instructions on your talk page.
I must also ask, did you previously edit under a different account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D Metrixpk (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:17, 9 July 2024 review of submission by RichardMeier33

I have been working on the draft Henrik von Scheel for while. It´s the second time. I used allot of time to build the verifiable links, and to improve the text. I am new and I am fell I am stuck. I would appreciate some help to learn from the some of the senior guards. RichardMeier33 (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RichardMeier33! You have a couple of problems with your draft at the moment. One is that it sounds like you are trying to tell everyone how wonderful Henrik von Scheel is - and he might be a great person, but in Wikipedia articles we need to have a very neutral tone. We cannot say "played a pivotal role" or "significantly contributed" or anything else like that unless we are using the same words as a source. Sometimes it helps to think of it as a collection of facts: He was born in this place. He did this thing, and then did that thing.
The second problem is your sources. You need to find sources that establish von Scheel is notable by Wikipedia standards; there's a few ways people can be notable, so have a look and decide which one you are going to try to meet. Because von Scheel is also a living person, you need to follow the rules for biographies of living people (BLPs). This means you need to have a suitable source for every single statement in the draft.
Your sources need to fit WP:42, the "golden rule" - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If a source doesn't match all three of those, it is not a good source and you shouldn't use it. Remember, the goal here is to show that your subject is notable, so you want all of your sources to support that in some way. I'm going to go over some of your current sources and try to show you which ones are good:
1) doesn't work, so you will probably have to fix that link before we can assess it!
2) seems to have been written by von Scheel, so it is not independent. It also doesn't talk about von Scheel, but about Industry 4.0, so it doesn't have significant coverage of him. You can't use this to show notability.
3) is an interview (not independent), and again about Industry 4.0 (not significant coverage). You can't use this either.
4) is the same as 2) and 3)
5) is the same as 4), only it's about Dubai instead of von Scheel.
6) is a list of people, so it has no significant coverage; this doesn't show notability.
7) is the same as 4)
8) is also the same as 4)
9) is from a company that employs him (not independent, not reliable); this is also no good.
10) is a Wikipedia link; we don't cite Wikipedia. The linked page also doesn't mention von Scheel at all, so it's useless.
I'm going to stop there, because hopefully that will give you an idea of what you need to fix. A lot of your sources seem to be things von Scheel has written, which can't be used for notability. I think you're going to have to start over again, looking for sources - newspaper articles, online articles, books, etc - that are about Henrik von Scheel, not about Industry 4.0, and that are not interviews he's done. Your other option is to abandon the draft for the moment, and see whether there's any information you could add to the Fourth Industrial Revolution article instead, since most of your sources focus on that instead. Whatever you decide, I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Amphoracat

I see that my draft article has been refused and I am somewhat confused. I have been told that Charles Schneider doesn't meet the notability and reliable sources criteria, but I have included a plethora of links and sources to his works and publications which provide proof of his extensive output. I am in need of guidance about what I can do to improve this article so it can meet the standards referenced. I have some additional newspaper articles and podcast interviews--will these help meet the standard? Are actual book publications not suitable in themselves, but one needs to have actual reviews of the books written in order to indicate that they were published? Specifically, how many additional citations would be needed for this draft article to be accepted? Thank you for your assistance. Amphoracat (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amphoracat: You need to demonstrate that Schneider's works have been professionally reviewed, and/or that he has won awards for his work. See WP:NAUTHOR. Merely linking to sources that show his works exist does not help for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 9 July 2024 review of submission by Artem 2013 123

It's a REAL country. Please bring back this article. Artem 2013 123 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem 2013 123: Wikipedia is not for things made up for school one day. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem 2013 123: If you haven't already, please consider taking your concept to MicroWiki in the meantime. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when several independent reliable sources have written at some length about your invention. Until that happens, it cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 9 July 2024 review of submission by 2601:18E:D000:4DD0:54FA:196:EC4D:E57D

he is cool 2601:18E:D000:4DD0:54FA:196:EC4D:E57D (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

00:07, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Frankincense Diala

Please what do I do? Frankincense Diala (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frankincense Diala: This draft has been rejected due to disregard of the prior reviewers' comments and critiques, and it will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it declined? There was enough citation to prove it's notable. So now what should I do? Frankincense Diala (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jéské Couriano, I blocked the user: too many COI/UPE suspicions here, and too much IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:04, 10 July 2024 review of submission by CBrookUM

Can someone please let me know any specific items that led to this article being declined? Anything specific we can address? The reason I see it was declined is fairly general - lack of credible sources.

However, we have listed links to Washington's diary where he specifically mentions staying at the house multiple times, a letter he wrote to a friend stating his visit there, the NPS, a few Historical Societies, VF Park, a person with the PA Historical Society that did her Penn State thesis on the house, ArbNet, the official designator of Arboretums, Independence National Historical Park among many other sources. Curious how it took roughly 11 minutes from initial submission to review all of the sources.

Please let me know anything specific we need to provide, update or change.

Thank you CBrookUM (talk) 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBrookUM Who is "we"? Only a single person should be operating and have access to your account. If you represent an organization associated with this historic structure, that needs to be formally declared, see conflict of interest. If you are editing as part of your job or otherwise get any form of compensation, the Terms of Use require that to be formally disclosed, see the paid editing policy.
Many passages of your draft are unsourced. What sources you do have seem to be primary(George Washington's diary, citations for it being designated a historic strutcure, etc.), any draft should mainly summarize independent reliable sources say about the structure. It may be notable(i.e. it wasn't declined for lack of notability) but it still needs sources. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:28, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Akaayu

Why my Draft has been rejected Akaayu (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaayu: your draft has been rejected, because after multiple reviews it still doesn't provide any evidence of notability per WP:ORG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Prince kumar 2.0

Can you help me Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince kumar 2.0: no. This draft has been rejected. If you could please stop creating – under any account – more drafts on this topic, that would be appreciated. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Sanya Wadhwani

I submitted an article for review but it was declined. I was trying to add about a company in the encyclopedia that is helping students in grooming them for preparation for MAANG companies. Please guide me how to write the article and also highlight in the article where I made mistake. Sanya Wadhwani (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sanya Wadhwani. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. We are an encyclopaedia of notable topics. There is no evidence that Coding Blocks meets our notability criteria. Qcne (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sanya Wadhwani your draft, Draft:Coding Blocks, was declined because it is written promotionally and that all sources are from the company's website. I've tagged it for speedy deletion for that reason. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Junurita

I have found many sources to put in my article, why is my article considered to lack reliable sources? Junurita (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Junurita: you need to cite the actual sources, not Google. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Junurita (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 10 July 2024 review of submission by AngelynAsrisch

hello sir

here is some more reference of this article

https://www.miragenews.com/research-inspires-journey-into-politics/ https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/news-and-events/news/research-inspires-journey-into-politics https://crs.org.nz/the-crs-board https://cginz.org/Event?Action=View&Event_id=842 https://www.shirleyroadcentral.nz/community-boards/ https://www.odt.co.nz/star-news/star-christchurch/results-linwood-central-heathcote-community-board-election-revealed https://www.ncwnz.org.nz/tags/ncwnzchch https://www.nzibt.ac.nz/profile/ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/431088/failed-ousting-exposes-party-political-influence-in-local-government-chairperson https://www.peopleschoice.co.nz/christchurch-community-board-candidates https://multiculturaltimes.news/profiles/2019/9/22/sunita-gautam-candidate-for-linwood-central-heathcote-community-board-central-ward https://www.neighbourly.co.nz/public/christchurch/edgeware/message/61335528 https://policy.nz/2022/waipapa-papanui-innes-central-community-board-central-subdivision/candidates/sunita-gautam https://venuefinder.nz/wedding-profile/sunita-gautam-celebrant/73566 https://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2024/05/PCBCC_20240509_AGN_9126_AT.HTM AngelynAsrisch (talk) 09:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelynAsrisch: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Please don't post your sources here, we've no need of them here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AngelynAsrisch I have responded on your talk page. Qcne (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:41, 10 July 2024 review of submission by ArtsSquareWiki

Hi everyone,

After my submission for this translated article was denied because it wasn't backed by enough reliable sources (it relied too much on the organization's references), I have been working on improving it. I have now gathered and incorporated information from reliable articles and documents from various sources around the web to rewrite the article.

I hope the revisions are now satisfactory. Could someone please review the article before I resubmit it for approval?

Thank you very much for your assistance.

All the best, ArtsSquareWiki (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtsSquareWiki: we don't provide on-demand reviews or 'pre-reviews' here at the help desk. If you feel you've sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reason(s), resubmit the draft, and you'll get feedback when a reviewer picks it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks ArtsSquareWiki (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 10 July 2024 review of submission by CaptainTavish

Hi, this was my first attempt at a Wikipedia Page.

I mistakenly focused more on the notable works of the company rather than the company itself. I've since edited the page to include more about the company including an external reference to a piece about the company itself, rather than just the news articles about their notable pieces. I've added a comment in reply to the reviewer that I've addressed their issues. I've resubmitted for review.

My question is, does this now join the back of the queue and sit there, waiting another couple of months or more before it gets picked up by someone else to review?

If I've not done enough and need to edit it again, this could become a long process. Is there anyway to get feedback as to if I've done enough?

Thanks. CaptainTavish (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainTavish: I haven't looked at the draft yet, but just to answer your question about back of the queue, there is no queue. There is instead a pool. In other words, drafts go in, and reviewers pick what they want, when they want, in no particular order. So yours may get reviewed as I'm typing this, or you may have to wait a few months, or anything in between; there's no way of telling. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. As it happens, that is what happened. While I was typing the question someone has taking a look at the draft. Ironically, having been told to talk about the notability of the company more, the latest feedback was that it was now too promotional... Hopefully I've addressed this now. Thanks. CaptainTavish (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason why it is promotional is that it is largely what the company wants to say about itself (eg the section on Community Engagement cites one source which is largely quoting the founders, and another which only mentions the company. 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) 22:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you that is helpful. I'd thought that it was ok, because only the factual aspects of the event were mentioned on the wiki page. I have found an alternative source which doesn't include any quotes from the business owner. CaptainTavish (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Avi Gazit

Hello, the draft rejected because the resources I have presented in the draft - I quote - "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

To my humble understanding the official website of India' Prime Minister is quite a reliable for the article, isn't it? Also, the YouTube link present India' PM himself meet Hiroko Takayama.

An explanation what i am doing wrong or what additional resources are need to make this draft appropraite for publication will be much appreciated, thank you very much. Avi Gazit (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avi Gazit: the Indian PM's website and YouTube channel are primary sources, whereas we need to see secondary ones. Also, two sources (which are actually just one source) wouldn't be enough to establish notability in any case; we need 3+.
And articles on living people (WP:BLP) require inline citations to support pretty much every material statement, whereas you've only listed these sources at the end without citing them anywhere. Thus the entire draft remains unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your prompt and kind reply. Could you please refer me to a guide for adding an article, so I could understand what exactly are these secondary sources and else needed to stand the standard? Thank you again. Avi Gazit (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avi Gazit: in most cases, notability is established according to the general notability guideline WP:GNG. This requires sources to be, among other things, secondary, which typically means newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc. (although the issue is more nuanced than that; media channels may also provide primary or tertiary content, even if they usually are secondary).
In addition to GNG, there are also some special notability guidelines, and in this case the ones for artists (WP:ARTIST) or academics (WP:NACADEMIC) could conceivably apply. These both have specific criteria, one or more of which needs to be met, backed up with reliable evidence. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Following are some major newspapers (in digital) in Japan. Will adding those to draft as additional resources will enable the article to be properly posted/published in Wikipedia?
1) https://www.sankei.com/article/20230605-KZSIMXYLOZNBDFGMUATA4UQUTQ/
2) https://www.asahi.com/articles/ASR6N7J9JR6LPITB017.html
3) https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/local/hiroshima/news/20230609-OYTNT50068/
4) https://mainichi.jp/articles/20230613/k00/00m/040/171000c
Last is a major newspaper in several prefectures in Hiroshima area:
https://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/articles/-/312596 Avi Gazit (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of adding the links, you need to rewrite your draft to summarize what the sources say. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Sushil Dobhal

Hello sir, why my article submission was declined, please post my article. Sushil Dobhal (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It tells you at the top of the draft The submission appears to be written in Hindi. This is the English language Wikipedia; we can only accept articles written in the English language Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Woodgrain1

Hi, I created this page to be informative about a social networking service. It is similar to other articles already on Wikipedia, however it was rejected due to notability. Can you give a more specific reason on why or how I can fix this to have the page published? Thanks Woodgrain1 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 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.
Writing an article starts with finding independent reliable sources which discuss the subject in depth. If there aren't any, then the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and not article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woodgrain1, your draft is entirely lacking references to reliable published sources that are both completely independent of Image Eagle and that devote significant coverage to Image Eagle. Without references to such sources, it is simply impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about this topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The service was launched this month (according to the draft), meaning that WP:Too soon may be in effect at this point. Wait till significant third-party writeups come in over the next several months or more--provided it really takes off (even within its niche). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Damjana12

Hello, Recently I created my first wiki page which got declined first and since then I've implemented some recommended changes. I would value it a lot if you could please have a look into it and let me know if you see anything that would need more work and improvement so I can make sure the page gets published when it has a second review. This is the link to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mark_Kotter

Thank you in advance for your guidance and support, what a great community of people I'm learning a lot from all of you.

Best wishes, Damjana Damjana12 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Damjana12: you also asked this at the Teahouse; please don't ask in several places, as it duplicates efforts.
You need to respond to the conflict-of-interest (COI) questions Hoary posed, which has also been queried on your talk page.
We don't really provide pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, so you'll get feedback when a reviewer picks it up. But after a quick scan I'd say it looks like there's a good chance this person may be notable (h-index of 46 isn't to be sniffed at), but the draft is written in a vaguely promotional manner, and there is unreferenced information which needs supporting (eg. what source provides his DOB, or his educational background?), so those might be areas to still work on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance. I apologise for any inconvenience caused by posting in multiple places; I understand the importance of not duplicating efforts. I will focus on addressing the conflict-of-interest (COI) questions Hoary raised on my talk page and the Teahouse.
Regarding the draft, I appreciate your quick scan and feedback. I'll make sure to revise the draft to avoid any promotional language and will add reliable sources for all unreferenced information, including the subject's date of birth and educational background. I'll also be patient and wait for the official review of the resubmitted draft.
Thanks again for your help! Damjana12 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:52, 10 July 2024 review of submission by Aidantonebase

Hello, a little while back I submitted a page draft for this company (in full disclosure I do work here, I have taken every action I know of of disclosing this on my page and keeping the language of the page as neutral as possible).

The post got rejected due to a few reasons, including some language which I can see to be a bit promotional. I've got a question regarding frequency/type of references:

My post was taken down because not every single sentence came with a reference, including each bullet in a very long list. Another point was that there were non secondary sources, even though the article hit the minimum of 5 reputable secondary sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. What is the guideline behind these aspects? Here are two pages I'm also curious about:

Both of these pages have a few reliable sources based on the Wikipedia guidelines, but they also resort to using company information publicly available, as well as leaving out references when it becomes redunant (see the bulleted list on the Masterclass page). I based my page entirely off of Masterclasses page since we are in the same industry, but the points I was knocked down for seem to also be violated by MasterClass's and Spotify's page. I asked the individual who approved the rejection of my post but haven't heard back in a month.

If someone could clarify why these two companies are allowed to have their pages formatted the way they are and tonebase is not, that would be super helpful and save me from submitting another invalid draft to AoC. Tonebase is a very well established company with plenty of reputable media coverage in line with the Wikipedia policy, so I'm willing to be flexible to adhere to any rule set forth. Thank you! Aidantonebase (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aidantonebase You have some common misunderstandings about Wikipedia. First, Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves, their offerings, and what they consider to be their own history. Wikipedia articles about companies summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the company or routine information(like financial reports) and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about a company- not what it sees as important about itself. That one company in an industry may merit an article does not automatically mean others in the industry do as well. The vast majority of companies do not merit Wikipedia articles. This may include some that actually have them, and just haven't been removed yet- this is why it is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, see other stuff exists. It's best to use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Companies do not maintain the articles about them here, and they do not own them or exclusively dictate what appears there. Ideally, articles are written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject. If you have evidence that Spotify or MasterClass employees are maintaining their articles without the Terms of Use required disclosures(the one you made), I can tell you how to provide that evidence(do not provide it here, publicly).
Regarding your draft itself, it was deleted as thoroughly promotional, in seeing it(I can view deleted articles as an admin) I must agree. You need to set aside everything you know about your company, all materials it puts out, and only summarize what others have chosen on their own to say about your company. (no interviews/press releases). My advice is that you go on about the business of your company as if you had never heard of Wikipedia and allow an article to organically develop in the usual way through independent editors taking note of coverage of your company. That's the best indicator of notability. Companies trying to force the issue themselves aren't often successful. 331dot (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

00:51, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Thugpoetak

HEY DEAR I WANT TO CLAIM MY SPOTIFY ARTIST PROFILE THATS WHY THEY ARE DEMANDING MY WIKIPEDIA I REALLY WANT TO PUBLISH THIS Thugpoetak (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author blocked for a very obvious reason. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any platform that hard-requires a Wikipedia article for verification is incompetent. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 11 July 2024 review of submission by AlexBW0524

I received feedback about the article submitted for publication that it did not demonstrate enough solo works outside of her group NewJeans, and does not have enough individual notability. I then edited the article as per these recommendations by adding information about a campaign she did for the the South Korean National Elections Commission and information about her campaign with Chanel Beauty's N°1 de Chanel Red Camellia line. I was wondering if I have improved the article to better show individual notability? Additionally, I did my best to properly cite the sources, however I would appreciate someone checking that I did so correctly. AlexBW0524 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexBW0524: I haven't analysed the sources in detail (you get that when you resubmit the draft for another review), but if the only new content you've added is about some modelling work she has done, this is unlikely to help with the notability issue. The point that the reviewer made was that she is notable only or mainly as part of the group, and we would need to see evidence of her own notability as an individual musician rather than a group member. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for responding. I'm a bit confused as her fellow group member Hanni Pham has a published wikipedia page with similar credentials. Specifically similar pre-debut filmography, both have exactly 2 writing credits for their group's works on extremely notable singles, brand endorsement work, etc. I'm not sure in this case why her group member's page would be published while hers would not? If you or someone else could point out what specifically about her group member's activities is different enough to have qualified for notability, that would be extremely helpful since it's currently unclear to me what exactly differentiates their activities enough that one is more independently notable than the other. AlexBW0524 (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexBW0524: without analysing the draft and its sources, I can't really comment (you'll note that I said I hadn't done that, I was earlier merely remarking on your additional edits), except to say that we don't assess drafts by comparison to other similar drafts or articles, so whether another member of this girl group has an existing article or not doesn't really come into it. The Hanni (singer) article seems to have been in the process of being reviewed, when it was moved into the main article space by an administrator without leaving an edit summary to explain their thinking, therefore I've no idea what the rationale behind that was. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions to the best of your abilities. I'll continue working on the article in the draft space for the foreseeable future and adding more sources and information. AlexBW0524 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:24, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Helposys

This page is not unambiguously promotional because it provides general company information that is of public interest. The content has been revised to remove any promotional elements, including the phone number. This page aims to offer neutral and factual information about the company that may be useful to internet users. Helposys (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Helposys: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. Contesting the deletion here at the help desk is pointless, you need to do that on the draft talk page (as indeed you have done). And just to explain, yes, the draft is promotional, because it is the business telling the world about itself (speaking of which, I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it), rather than being based on what independent third parties have said about it, which is what Wikipedia articles should be based on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Sukhi vale

I will added 6 reference for proof Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim is a notable person why not accept it . Please told me details I will recover my mistake. Sukhi vale (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukhi vale: the sources need to meet the WP:GNG guideline for notability; none of the ones cited in this draft do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me for proper reference added please do this you are experiend , I'm new here Sukhi vale (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sukhi vale: thanks (for asking), but no thanks. I've no knowledge of, or interest in, this subject, and we here at the help desk generally don't get involved in co-editing. You could ask at some WikiProjects, eg. WP:WikiProject Football and/or WP:WikiProject India, if anyone there can help. But by and large, the onus is on you as the draft creator to develop the draft to an acceptable standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:24, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Huntere123

The submission was declined for unreliable sources, however the main sources used throughout the article are a book from R. P. Hunnicutt's A History of American Armor, which are considered to be a highly reputable source on American armor, and are used throughout other Wikipedia articles on the subject, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M48_Patton, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_heavy_tank etc). The other main source used is various Jane's publications, which are also considered a highly reputable source for information on defense related topics, e.g. armored vehicles, and are also used in other Wikipedia articles on similar topics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Survivability_Test_Vehicle_(Lightweight) etc). Due to this I am unsure why my submission was declined for the given reason, and any assistance would be appreciated. Huntere123 (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huntere123: Without looking at your sources, the entire History section needs to be broken up into distinct paragraphs. It's borderline-impenetrable as is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 11 July 2024 review of submission by 103.135.255.194

How i got approval this Biography ? 103.135.255.194 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. It has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Facebook and Twitter are not reliable sources, and there is nothing to suggest that they are notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Danny8384535

how do i add sources? is it like adding citations? Danny8384535 (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danny8384535 Yes. The two terms are broadly interchangeable 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 11 July 2024 review of submission by Amirsohelkhan993

Amirsohelkhan993 (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirsohelkhan993:JBW (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirsohelkhan993 Your attempt at your autobiography has been deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim

Where is Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim Indian footballer article page ? Sukhi vale (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukhi vale It is where you left it, presumably, at Draft:Mahroos Siddiquee Nadim 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how do I add properly please help me Sukhi vale (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads on this.
I told you already, it's your job to develop the draft. Currently there is nothing to suggest this person is notable, and until there is, the draft won't be accepted. That's what you need to focus on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

08:15, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Beamai2004

There is a detailed article on Gustav Maier (WriterI in the German Wikipedia:: Gustav Maier (Schriftsteller) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Maier_(Schriftsteller) Since Gustav Maier has been described in the first volume of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein as an important benefactor and sponsor of the young Albert Einstein at Zurich, from 1895-1901 and in all biographies on Albert Einstein, I have submitted a shortened version of the German Wikipedia article on Gustav Maier (Schriftsteller) in English, hence, this is a well referenced and notorious personality who definitely deserves an aticle also in the English version of Wikipedia. Thank you very much for looking into this matter. Beamai2004 (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beamai2004 Please understand that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies, and what is acceptable on one version(if it is) is not necessarily acceptable here. When translating an article from one Wikipedia to another, it is up to you to ensure that the translation meets the policies of the language version you are translating. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Your draft is far too poorly sourced to be acceptable at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beamai2004, when I look at your draft, I see vast swathes of unreferenced content that violate the core content policy Verifiability. Translations from other language versions are welcomed, but only if they comply with the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. Yours does not do so. Cullen328 (talk) 08:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 12 July 2024 review of submission by BasharatAli254

please let me know why my draft is not being accepted. how may I improve it 

BasharatAli254 (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BasharatAli254 Rejection usually means the end for a draft. You re-submitted it with zero improvements, despite previous advice given on the 10th July. Your draft is written in a completely inappropriate way for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a memorial.
If you think you can re-write this draft to comply with our strict policies on neutrality, let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 12 July 2024 review of submission by ExoField

Hi, can someone briefly review this and see if it sounds promotional or not and if it is ready for submission. I'd also appreciate any advice for improvements. Thank you. ExoField (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to submit it for review we don't do pre-review reviews! Theroadislong (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh.. I see. Can I at least get a confirmation if it sounds promotional or not.
Thanks. ExoField (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Mahendra Umesh Nayaka

How can i publish this article Mahendra Umesh Nayaka (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1234059691"