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 Bdavid1b00 (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 14 July 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Isa_Abass_Usman). 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 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]
Looking at the German article de:Gustav Maier (Schriftsteller), I see that the vast majority of citations are to his works. That is not acceptable in en-wiki: the majority of citations, and the basis for almost the entire article, should be to independent works about Maier. ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 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]
@ExoField without making any comment on if the University meets our WP:NSCHOOL criteria, I would say it is written in a fairly neutral way. Qcne (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. By the way, I'd appreciate if you made a comment on whether the University meets the WP:NSCHOOL criteria or not. ExoField (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just about does.
Please remove the Google Maps reference (we don't use Google Maps as a source). Qcne (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you so much. ExoField (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sorry to bother you, is it ready for submission? Can I submit it now? ExoField (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ExoField I have submitted it and accepted it for you. :) Qcne (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I got caught off-guard a bit, I thought this was supposed to take many days. Thank you so much.
Also, are you well-versed in geography, by chance? I have a couple of questions regarding a canal Wikipedia page. Again, thanks a lot, I really appreciate the help.
Warm Regards. ExoField (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not particularly an expert in Geography, but am pretty experienced in reviewing and editing articles - what's the question? Qcne (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's this article here: Upper Swat Canal
It was tagged with not being notable enough under geographic guidelines by a much more experienced editor. I've went over the geographic guidelines and understood the point. Now, this canal has a couple of books written on it and it almost always has a separate section in the references which are currently present in the article. Hasn't notability been established? I originally thought the issue was that there weren't enough references, is it the quality of the reference which creates the issue? I'd appreciate any guidelines here.
By the way, I'm 100% sure that this article is notable, it's the largest, most important canal in North-Western Pakistan, but I'm finding a bit of trouble finding sources which highlight its importance which aren't written in a blog post. There are a lot of references dating back to the early 1900s which mention that it will be one of the most important canals in the future, but all of it is used in future tense.
Thanks for reading. ExoField (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the references given, and I agree it meets notability! I will remove the tag. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! ExoField (talk) 13:49, 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]

@Mahendra Umesh Nayaka: you cannot, it has been rejected (and previously deleted after an AfD discussion, I might add).
Have you previously edited under a different account, by any chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no i have not UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 12 July 2024 review of submission by UnknownHistoryFacts

i wonder why my article has been deleted. I got accused of vandalism, however, this story is true. Just because it isn't in history books or anything doesn't mean that it never happened. John H Backflip was a relative of mine and this story has been going round in my family for ions. it really means a lot to me and my family if it would stay on wikipedia, because i would like to share this story with the world. There are a LOT of vandals on this site, and their pages sometimes stay up, but my page, that isn't meant to be funny got taken down. I would really appriciate it if you can take another look. UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UnknownHistoryFacts: it hasn't been deleted. It soon will be, though. Let's leave it at that, okay? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) here is proof of the existance of john backflip UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for others, but there is zero chance I'm going to click on some random link like that.
Sources have to be published, and reliable, and we need to see several of them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeffed (it was just a Facebook reels meme) Qcne (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UnknownHistoryFacts Creating hoxes on Wikipedia is not permitted, and your account will be blocked from editing if you continue. Qcne (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted) it's not a hoax, here is proof of the existence of John Backflip UnknownHistoryFacts (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is irrelevant. We're looking for evidence that reliable sources have written about John Backflip. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 185.252.40.36

Hello, I wrote an article about a Turkish entrepreneur. It was declined because of the lack of references at some parts of the article. I got my info about the person at a live event that her company hosted a few months ago. How can I add proof about the person's life in this situation. I would appreciate if you can help me with my first article. 185.252.40.36 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. In order to meet our verifiability requirements, all information about a person in a Wikipedia article must be based on published reliable sources. This could include interviews, newspaper articles, books, etc, but you specifically cannot use anything which is not published. Qcne (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're Venusedit? In which case, please remember to log into your account whenever editing.
At this event, did they convey all the information in such a promotional manner, or did you put your own spin on it?
I noticed that you've also created a draft on the other co-founder of the business, Draft:Bülent Tekmen. What is your relationship with these people and/or the business? If you attended their event, and ended up writing articles on both individuals, there's probably a reason for that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 24.45.213.68

How can we get this page posted? There seems to be enough reputable sources. A similar company to ours is on here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DocuWare 24.45.213.68 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot, please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Square_9_Softworks. The draft has been rejected and will no longer be considered. Qcne (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Roblox678956568

THIS PAGE IS ALWAYS REJECTED SO I MADE A MISTAKE I DONT KNOW HOW TO FIX THIS BAD PAGE ANYWAYS CAN U DELETE THIS PAGE INSTEAD Roblox678956568 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not shout. I have requested deletion. Qcne (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 12 July 2024 review of submission by The Summum Bonum

To whom it may concern need to delete my drafts need thy assistance Your guidance is at my mercy truly yours The Summum Bonum (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Summum Bonum: Assuming nobody has made any significant edits (i.e. edits that aren't copy-edits, null edits, or draft reviews), you can tag it for deletion with {{db-g7}}. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your help The Summum Bonum (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:41, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Gautamparmaraone

why my draft deleted Gautamparmaraone (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's spam, @Gautamparmaraone. Qcne (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Robert20654

Dear Sirs. Please I need help to format the Accolades Table. I did som,ething wrong and now I don't know ho to fix the prolem that I caused. In particular some cells "Nominated" don't show correctly. Some cells "Won" are in the wrong column. It seems thare is an extra column at right, that I don't know how to delete. Thank you very much. Robert20654 

Robert20654 (talk) 15:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert20654 you need to compare the rows that display correctly with those which do not. Change the first incorrectly displaying row to match a row which displays correctly. Then use PREVIEW to see the effect. If it has solved the first one, submit/save.
Do the same with the next.
Sometimes solving the first one will solve the rest. This means that you should go down the table, correcting one at a time. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Adamcat222

We received feedback that the subject was not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject is one of the largest hedge funds in the world. We have sited multiple large news sources. What else are we missing? What can we add? Adamcat222 (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? User accounts are strictly single person use, the draft was rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also need to disclose your evident conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamcat222: Odds are you cited the sources based on their outlet; we have to judge sources based as much on their content as well. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked below as "critiques"):
Other than the Yahoo/Insider Monkey source, the others I could assess are of no use for notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Ricrickey

Why was this declined Ricrickey (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricrickey: why was a blank page rejected? I guess because it was blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was a viable encyclopaedic article? Qcne (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense Ricrickey (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m new here I have no clue how this works Ricrickey (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ricrickey, have a read of WP:YFA. Qcne (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He, Ricrickey. I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent several weeks (at least) working in Wikipedia and learning about how it works. Would you take up tennis and immediately enter a major tournament? Would you try building a house when you have no housebuilding experience?
Once you have an understanding of funbamental principles such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable sources, and notability, then it might be worth reading your first article and giving it a go. Until then, trying to create an article is going to be a disappointing and frustrating experience, as you probably won't understand the feedback you get.
Note that creating articles is not the only way, or necessarily the best way, to contribute to Wikipedia. I've been here for nineteen years, made nearly 25 thousand edits, but I've only ever created 14 articles (and some of those were just redirects or disambiguation pages). ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Abdelalinour

hello what i should do to creat my own biography ? Abdelalinour (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelalinour, First of all, writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Your draft lacks valid references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to you. Interviews are not independent and do not establish notability. I suggest that you abandon this effort, although I wish you well in your entertainment career. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 1-335 Warriors

I created a page that is for an active duty army battalion. The page was not approved to be published and I don't understand why. Our higher headquarters at the Army level (3 echelons up), Division level (2 echelons up) and Brigade level (1 echelon up), both have approved pages. They are First Army, First Army Division East, and 157th Infantry Brigade respectively. Our battalion is even mentioned on the 157th Infantry Brigade as a subordinate battalion. The source that I provided is used to populate our entire page. The notification didn't mention what part of the page was not supported by an article.

Thanks for your help. 1-335 Warriors (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1-335 Warriors, your draft completely lacks valid references to reliable, independent sources devoting significant coverage to this battalion. One Wikipedia article is not a legitimate source for another Wikipedia article, per WP:CIRCULAR. Most battalions are not notable as Wikipedia defines that term. The few that are notable are the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, such as books or journal articles by respected military historians. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:59, 12 July 2024 review of submission by Win8x

Hey there. I understand why my draft was declined and I am not contesting that. While I will try to find more sources, are my non-independent sources, 2 and 3, completely out of the question or can I keep them? Yes, they do contain interviews but what I use the sources for isn't the information from the interviews (rather, I use what the authors themselves of the articles say about the company). Thank you! Win8x (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Win8x! The difficulty here is that we can't be certain whether the authors got that information from the owners, or whether they did some research on their own. Since we don't know, we must assume that the information is not reliable. Interviews can sometimes be used for very basic facts that would not be disputed by any reasonable person, but I would recommend forgetting about the interviews and having a look for more sources that have no connection whatsoever to the owners. Good luck with your draft, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thank you! Win8x (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:54, 12 July 2024 review of submission by 91.105.102.125

Dear Customer Support,

My submission was rejected without stating a reason, as I am sure that my submission does not violate Wikipedia's rules. Is there a possibility to get a reason for cancellation and work it through?

Best, Naruba. 91.105.102.125 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is in Russian and this is the English Wikipedia. We can only accept submissions in the English language. Your draft is also unreferenced, which violates the the core content policy Verifiability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is not "customer support". We are unpaid volunteers here and you are not a customer. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Naruba, please remember to log in when using Wikipedia.
You perhaps wanted to post this on Russian Wikipedia? But I doubt that they would accept it there without any sources. A search for "Jyllandsgade 5 Struer" turned up nothing at all about a band, so I doubt whether the band meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

04:45, 13 July 2024 review of submission by 202.41.10.107

The draft was last declined in 2022 and should be reviewed once again because now the actor has attained WP:N with his lead roles in Hero - Gayab Mode On, Ali Baba: Ek Andaaz Andekha. He had a prominent role in Amazon mini TV series Jab We Matched. Also, he is currently doing a lead role in the show. Pukaar - Dil Se Dil Tak. So kindly review the draft once again. 202.41.10.107 (talk) 04:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to approach one of the editors who rejected the draft directly: @Scope creep or @Bonadea. But notice that while NACTOR mentions "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" as a criterion for notability, you still need the reliable independent sources.
Before approaching one of those editors, you should go through the long list of citations in the draft, looking at each one critically: does it meet the triple criteria of the golden rule? If not, you should probably remove it, and any information cited to it, unless it is a self-published source in which case it may be allowed to stay if the kind of information it supports it appropriate. For example, the first two citations contain only passing reference to Nigam. ColinFine (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Mamorenor

Hello.

As I usually do so, I did a search in Wikipedia about a software component that has been trending within the software development community ( ==> HTMX )

However, I was surprised to find "no entry" related to such software component in the main "English" pages.

Even more surprised I was when I noticed that there is an entry about the HTMX software component in the Czech wikipedia pages.

Therefore, I decided to help the community and write the English version of the HTMX software component.

After registering in Wikipedia and after starting editing of the HTMX article, I was shown the current draft of the HTMX article with many "article submission declined" entries ( x4 ).

I am very familiar and experienced writing technical articles, and after reading the current draft article of "HTMX" I found it to be good enough for submission acceptance.

Nevertheless, I am a true beginner when it comes to editing Wikipedia articles. I noticed that the "submission declines" suggest to "ask for help" to get guidance into how to "fix" the article to have its submission accepted.

Can you provide guidance into what is wrong with the current draft so I can contribute to edit and fix it?

Thank you !!! 

Mamorenor (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, writing for Wikipedia is very different from most other forms of writing.
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.
This means, that the first stage in creating an article is to find sources that are wholly unconnected with the subject (or in this case, with the developers of the sofware. Almost nothing written or published by the developers, marketers etc is of any relevance to an article, and nor is anything they say in interviews or press releases. Also unacceptable is anything such as blogs, which are not published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking.
I also observe that your citation number 5, for example, does not mention HTMX once. The sole purpose of a citation in a Wikipedia article is to verify a claim about the subject of the article. If a source does not mention the subject, it is almost always a waste of everybody's time. In copntext, your citation no 5. appears to be trying to persuade the reader of the value of open-source: that makes it advocacy, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Weltall Zero

Hello, I need help with three issues regarding the UFO 50 draft page. 1) Two of the references show as broken, even though I can see nothing wrong with them. In fact, some of the references appear as broken and then fix themselves when editing unrelated parts of the page or moving them around, which is quite puzzling. 2) Would the current draft be a reasonable submission for approval? 3) If someone with image upload permissions could upload the game's cover (https://50games.fun/images/logo.jpg) as the article image, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much! Weltall Zero (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weltall Zero: See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a reference more than once. You basically used reference names but did not assign those names to any of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something obvious, that doesn't seem to be the case. I added names to every source, all of which work correctly, except for these two. They do have matching names in both the reference and the source (I made triple sure that they matched, even copying and pasting them), so I see no reason they wouldn't work. Indeed, they do work when I move things around (but then others break!), which is baffling. I've also double checked for unbalanced brackets, but I can't find any.
I uploaded a screenshot of the relevant code: you can see that the Edge and GamesRadar references are right there in the references section, between the RPS and Day of the Devs ones which work perfectly fine:
https://i.imgur.com/S6fCCDQ.png
I'm honestly at my wit's end here. :D Weltall Zero (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weltall Zero It appears to have been fixed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, Victor Schmidt fixed it. Thank you both! <3 Weltall Zero (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:22:55, 13 July 2024 review of submission by BubbleWombleBee12

Hi, can someone Review this article Draft:Buchi Babu Sana please? BubbleWombleBee12 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BubbleWombleBee12: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, it will be reviewed in due course; please remain patient (it seems it was only submitted two days ago, anyway). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not considered a reliable source and interviews are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 13 July 2024 review of submission by Adefolarin1

Hi Wikipedia Team,

I am reaching out in utter frustration regarding my article submission. Since the start of the year, I have been diligently re-drafting this article to meet all the requirements specified by your guidelines. It is outrageous that editor Johannes Maximilian has now reiterated the same feedback previously given by other editors, claiming the article lacks the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia and fails to adhere to a neutral point of view. I have meticulously revised the submission to eliminate any peacock terms and ensure it is written from a neutral perspective, as per your instructions.

Furthermore, the accusation that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources is simply untrue. I have invested countless hours referencing independent, reliable, published sources to verify every piece of information in the article. It is incredibly disheartening to have my efforts continuously dismissed by editors who seem to be trigger-happy in rejecting submissions without offering constructive feedback.

This process is beginning to feel discriminatory and marginalizing. Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, free space for sharing knowledge, yet I am encountering constant obstacles and encountering editors who appear to be mean-spirited and resentful, rejecting my efforts without due consideration.

This cannot continue indefinitely. I have poured significant time and effort into ensuring my submission meets Wikipedia's standards, and it is unacceptable for it to be continually undermined by dismissive editorial behavior. I urge you to review my submission again, taking into account the extensive work I have done to comply with your requirements.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Adefolarin Adefolarin1 (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that you are frustrated. This is the common experience of new editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of trying to create an article without spending any time learning about Wikipedia and its requirements.
Like many other new editors, you have written your draft BACKWARDS, instead of writing it from what the sources say and nothing else. And when I say "the sources", I mean almost exclusively the indpendent sources. Wikipedia is basically not interested in what Ogunwusi or her colleagues say about her: it is only interested in what people with no connection to her have chosen to publish about her, and that is what you should base the article on.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adefolarin1 Please do not go forum shopping. You have also asked this at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi, and included an image uploaded to Wikimedia Commons which is a copyright violation. I was going to offer similar advice to that which you have just received, but now have no need to do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, interviews cannot be used to establish notability and blogs are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Adefolarin1; since other people have mentioned the tone, I will focus on the sourcing first, since that is clearly a source of frustration for you. Let's see if I can help break it down a bit. You might already know this, so please bear with me if you do.
Your goal here is to establish that your subject (Ogunwusi) is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are very strict. Additionally, since she is a living person, you must also follow the WP:BLP (biographies of living people) rules. One of the most important BLP rules is that every statement that a reasonable person might question must be sourced. And, of course, all your sources must be suitable - they must meet WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of being reliable includes editorial oversight and strict publishing standards; some sites (newspapers, magazines, etc) will publish anything if they are paid, and those sites are not reliable.
Source 1) describes itself as a blog, and blogs are usually not reliable. There are no bylines (writers' names) on their articles and their About Us page doesn't give me much confidence. This probably cannot be used to establish notability, since the source is not reliable.
2) is an interview, which cannot be used for notability (not independent). You can use interviews for some extremely basic facts, like birth date, but not anything that might be challenged.
3) is not really about Ogunwusi; it's about a festival she presided over, and what she said. Unfortunately that means it is also no good to you, because it's not significant coverage and is also not independent.
4) is also not about her, it's about a different festival and more things she said. I'm starting to wish I could attend these festivals, they sound like a lot of fun! But sadly, this source has the same problems as 3).
5) is an interview, which again you cannot use for notability.
You can't write an article with these sources, so your first and biggest hurdle will be to find sources you can use.
Once you have done that, you'll probably need to rewrite the draft completely. Wikipedia articles on people are usually fairly standard: they begin with information about someone's childhood and adolescence, then onto their career and/or their notable accomplishments, then their current personal life, perhaps any controversies they've been involved in, and then their legacy or things people have said about them. The way articles are written is basically a series of facts, so you would be planning to write something like 'Ashley Folashade Adegoke Ogunwusi was born in [place] in [year, maybe month and day] to [parents]. She has a [degree] from [place]. She owns [business names].' You could include the fact that her official marriage date was postponed and why, with a suitable source. You'll notice that this way of writing is quite different to what you currently have - it's not easy to write in an encyclopedic way, which is one of the reasons we suggest people practice editing other articles before trying to write one.
I hope this has been helpful to you, and I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked and answered at Teahouse. Advised to in future not ask for help at more than one place. David notMD (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 13 July 2024 review of submission by SageOst2024

No one has re looked over my sources that I redid from the official sites that Vielle and his team created. I have removed the wiki references, and added his profile which proves quite a few of his feats. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these also include independent sources such as Nitro Type comp records and his team history. SageOst2024 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SageOst2024 For anyone to look at your draft you need to submit for further review, please. IT will then be looked at in due course 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see not one of your citations (which are not properly formatted - see WP:REFB - but that is another matter) is published by a reliable publisher. Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your draft has no sources whatever.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 13 July 2024 review of submission by MaceMezio

Hey, I just want to know which sources are unreliable or how I make my sources reliable on my article. One reason why I am asking this is cos I have seen from other pages of rides at Thorpe Park with less references than my article. Thank you! MaceMezio (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaceMezio! WP:42, the 'golden rule', might be helpful to you here: your sources need to be significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. To be reliable, the sources need to have editorial oversight (so not blogs, for example) and be reputable (some newspapers, websites, etc, will publish anything if they are paid to do so, and that is not reliable because they'll say whatever anyone wants them to). With that in mind, let's look at your sources:
1) is Coasterpedia, which is a user-generated source and thus not reliable.
2) is the manufacturer's website, so it's not independent - they'll want to say nice things about their product!
3) is a blog, so probably not reliable.
Looking through Thorpe Park's rides, I actually found one that's been assessed as a Good Article (The Swarm (roller coaster)) - this would be a great one to base your article on, since Good Articles (GAs) have been vetted by the community and we know they are, well, good. Look at the sources it has, and see if you can find similar things for your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

02:47, 14 July 2024 review of submission by RadioStoryTeller

I don't want to run afoul of the COI Guidelines, so I'm now reaching out for help in completing Draft:Secrets_of_Harridge_House. I disagree that this article is not suitable or inappropriate for Wikipedia, in that it isn't sufficiently sourced. There are far more sketchy articles currently available on Wikipedia that the same criticism could be applied to. I ask that an experienced Editor help me bring this article to fruition. Please don't be judgmental, as this is my first excursion into creating articles for Wikipedia. Everyone's got to start somewhere, right? Thank you for your time. I look forward to the next steps in this process. RadioStoryTeller (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioStoryTeller: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but I'll make a few observations in case it helps:
  1. You need to formally disclose your COI, as instructed in the message on your talk page. It isn't enough to say (assuming you're the one who added that) on the draft page "I'm Scott Young, a co-creator and co-writer...", because that won't stay there for very long, and in any case doesn't tell us which user account it refers to.
  2. I don't think anyone is telling you to "stop writing on this article", only that you must disclose your COI before continuing.
  3. We don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, in case that's what you mean by "ask[ing] that an experienced Editor help me bring this article to fruition"; that is entirely your responsibility.
  4. As for other sketchy articles on Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are indeed many problematic articles among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but that is no reason to create more such problems. All new articles must comply with the currently-applicable policies and guidelines, and that is why we assess drafts in reference to these, and not by comparison to existing articles.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely promotional, no indication of notability and no independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RadioStoryTeller If you would like to help us out, please identify these "sketchy" articles you have seen so action can be taken. We're only as good as the people who choose to help us out, and with millions of articles and only thousands if not hundreds of regular editors, we need help in addressing problematic articles. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:23, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Jan Steinman

How to include sound Jan Steinman (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jan Steinman: not sure what you mean, exactly, but there are two templates (at least) which could be used, {{Listen}} for sidebar content and {{Audio}} for inline audio.
That said, you don't really need to worry about such nice-to-haves, which don't in any way affect the draft's chances of being accepted. Instead, you should be working towards demonstrating notability, which is a core requirement for publishing, and for which your draft currently shows very little evidence, if any.
BTW, that list of external links in the 'The Neal Gladstone Radio Show' will need to go, as inline external links not allowed in the article main body text, and in any case such a long list is not appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Under "To be accepted, a draft should:" the word "notability" does not appear. I have worked hard to satisfy the conditions listed.
Can you provide me with some guidance on "notability?" Jan Steinman (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have one source that documents his death, and has some coverage of him, you need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of him and shows how he meets the definition of a notable musician or more broadly a notable person.
The performances section should be removed, it's uncited, and probably should only list performances that merit articles themselves(i.e. like The Eras Tour does for Taylor Swift). 331dot (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman: the first bullet point under "to be accepted", which reads qualifies for a Wikipedia article, refers to notability, and links to Wikipedia:Notability. And now 331dot has provided you with more specific links to person and musician notability guidelines. Please study those guidelines carefully.
I also need to mention that, as the person has died only a few months ago, this draft almost certainly still comes under our WP:Biographies of living persons policy (see WP:BDP), which requires inline citations to reliable published sources to support any potentially contentious statement and all private personal and family details. Currently most of the draft is unreferenced, and some of the sources cited are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman Additionally, while we have no reason to doubt the permissions given by his widow, we have no evidence of that permission. Without those permissions being recorded there is a strong probability of deletion. It is essential that permission is sent using the instructions present at any file.
At present, with this draft decorated with pictures which are pleasant, but add no value, and recordings which are similar, this is more a tribute page than a biography. Please see WP:NOTMEMORIAL and act accordingly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jan Steinman You have now proven that you can upload sound files.. Ok. However, being able to do something does not mean that you should do it. Wikipedia is not an archive of all of Gladstone's work. This great list will not be acceptable in the article, even if you achieve permission for them. 100% of them have been tagged as requiring permission.
Please give serious thought to our needs for an article, not a memorial, not an archive. If you wish to memorialise him, please get a website. Wikipedia is not a free web host. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:39, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Anilbudhamagar2022

why i could not upload my biography Anilbudhamagar2022 (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anilbudhamagar2022: a message was posted on your talk page three months ago explaining why autobiographies are not a good idea. And we take an especially dim view of totally unreferenced, purely promotional autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should upload your biography to social media or a personal website, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Slasher2point1

Hi, I am trying to get my page for Aly Brier, the wife of Tommy Nelson approved. The issue I keep running into are that the sources are not considered "reliable."

Since her work primarily consists of short films, the coverage is not as easily available as that for feature films. Can you please let me know which websites are causing this holdup when someone goes to review the page or provide suggestions for alternative websites I can used for sources that are considered appropriate?

Thank you for your time, I greatly appreciate it. Slasher2point1 (talk) 14:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slasher2point1 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.
Check your references against these tough criteria. No references which pass? No article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:06, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Uryder23

I’m working on my first Wikipedia page, doing the editing while incorporating input from a couple of other people who have knowledge about the subject, including a descendant of the person.

One of these people (Joe) is an artist, and has offered two related images to make them part of the page. He’s not active on Wikipedia and his technical skills are not strong, so he has asked me to upload the image files. I’ve explained the Commons license to Joe, and he is OK with the terms. But the upload process wants me to claim that I own the work, which I do not.

Do you have any suggestions about how to proceed? If Joe sends me an email documenting his agreement to the CC license, is there some way to use the email to comply with the rules about image uploads?

Thanks Tom Edds 

Uryder23 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uryder23 Images and technicalities about them, should be discussed on Wikimedia Commons. To save you some trouble please read c:COM:VRT and follow the processes outlined there, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tom. I'm afraid that, like many new editors, you have plunged straight into a task that may cause you considerable frustration.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft..
Note that "input from a couple of other people who have knowledge about the subject, including a descendant of the person", other than helping you identify independent sources about Breeze, are of little value, and may even be a hindrance. 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.
In fact, if you know people associated with Breeze, you may even have a conflict of interest in writing this - this does not prevent you from doing it, but it can make it even harder, as it is likely to make it hard for you to judge whether your text is sufficiently neutral. ColinFine (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Lucas Pat

Minor incident submitted the draft for review and may not be notable enough to accept submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lucas Pat. Indeed, the draft was rejected as not being notable enough for an article. Did you have a question about the rejection? Qcne (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Minor incident is rejected, not declined submission. But you need to add references or reliable sources for incidents to accept submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, that is why it was rejected. I still am not clear if you had a question about the draft, though? Qcne (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Clearly add more reliable sources and references to submit the draft for review, not "non-clear" submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Pat I do not understand what you mean, you are the one who submitted this draft? Why are you telling me to add reliable sources and submit the draft for review? As it has been rejected, it will not be considered. Qcne (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne will help you add reliable sources and references to submit the draft for review but the submission is rejected because topic is not notable enough to accept submission, not to decline submission. Lucas Pat (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are saying, @Lucas Pat. Please re-phrase. Qcne (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Pat Is English your primary language? It seems like you are using a translator or AI to communicate with us. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Yes. Is Portuguese the second language? Lucas Pat (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas Pat You should edit the Portugese Wikipedia if you cannot communicate with us without using a translator.
Você deve editar a Wikipédia em português se não conseguir se comunicar conosco sem usar um tradutor. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Joao Rocha likes Portuguese-language Wikipedia because the submission is rejected and the topic is not notable. Lucas Pat (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 14 July 2024 review of submission by Bdavid1b00

The article has been rejected multiple times. I have referenced enough sources 

Bdavid1b00 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1234507072"