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 118.221.204.69 (talk) at 03:32, 26 November 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Methionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamyl...serine). 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


November 19

02:34, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

The draft character I submitted is a relatively popular figure, and there are many reports on her deeds, but I have been revising the draft and it has not been passed yet. I don’t know if the current data can be passed. In addition, I would like to ask about other things besides the reported data that can prove the popularity. In addition, are there any other methods that are more suitable for checking the popularity of a person or thing? Rosebabysu (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find sources that are reliable, that are independent of the subject, and that are providing significant coverage about the subject. I'd have to agree with the drafter feedback; this article is a very long way from passing Articles for Deletion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rosebabysu. Please note that the "popularity" of a person or thing has no direct connection with whether or not they are notable in Wikipedia's sense. There are many YouTubers (to take one example) who are popular, but because nobody has written about them in a reliable source, they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Conversely, there are many notable writers, politicians, engineers, etc who have never been "popular".
Notability is mostly about the answer to the question "Is there enough reliably published material available about this subject?", remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Sethaw k.

I would like to ask you about declined article that how will be able to resolve it Sethaw k. (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve the issues, you'd have to write the article based on sources that are reliable and independent and actually about the subject. Five of the eight sources aren't about the subject at all and he's only mentioned in passing in the form of being quoted about another subject. Of the other three, you have something written by the subject, not about the subject, his LinkedinPage, and a list of him as a speaker at an event. There's not a single usable source here. And even with sources, the tone of the article is blatantly promotional, to the extent that I'm wondering if there's an undisclosed WP:COI here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the promotional tone, and the fact that a photograph that you uploaded and called your "own work" also appears on the web page for the event hosting Naripthaphan as a speaker, you need to clarify any undisclosed conflict of interest you have with the subject. And if you didn't create the photograph, you either need to get the proper licensing for it or remove it as a violation of our fairly strict rules about copyright. This last part is something you need to take care of immediately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:19, 19 November 2024 review of submission by AjinkyaKinetic

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing with the recent speedy deletion nomination placed on the Wikipedia draft page titled Draft: Ajinkya_Firodia. The page was tagged under section G11, with the reasoning that it is promotional.

I understand the concern regarding promotional content and I fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all Wikipedia entries adhere to the platform's guidelines and policies. We are committed to revising the page to align with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and encyclopedic tone.

To address the issues raised, we will be undertaking the following changes:

Rewriting the content to remove any promotional language or biased claims. Adding verifiable, reliable sources to support the information, ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s notability and citation requirements. Reframing the article to focus on the subject’s factual contributions, achievements, and relevant information, in line with Wikipedia’s biographical guidelines. We kindly request that you consider reviewing the draft after these revisions are made, and we would appreciate the opportunity to revise the content in a manner that complies with Wikipedia’s editorial standards. If the draft is deleted, we would happily provide further information and request restoration if necessary. AjinkyaKinetic (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AjinkyaKinetic you can recreate the draft at any time, but if it is still promotional, it will be deleted again. Also, who's 'we'? Accounts should not be shared. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AjinkyaKinetic: I have little faith in your ability to re-write the draft when you're using a chatbot to post this thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Interscope Web

how to improve our draft Interscope Web (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Interscope Web: you have to demonstrate that the subject is notable; you need to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner; and you must cite your sources inline (see WP:ILC). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help us edit the draft to make it acceptable by wikipedia Interscope Web (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are here to advice, not co-write. The onus is on you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Interscope Web. You probably won't want to hear this, but: 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) 10:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 19 November 2024 review of submission by CSK1987

Dear Team,

I have revised and enhanced the content in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Updates have been made to the Introduction, Early Life, Professional Journey, Establishment & Vision, Philanthropy & Social Contributions, and Awards & Recognition sections. Additionally, references have been corrected and added to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Please share your suggestions on which sections may need further rewriting or improvements.

Best regards, CSK CSK1987 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSK1987: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 19 November 2024 review of submission by MrAwesome1234

Why did you remove it MrAwesome1234 (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is located at User:MrAwesome1234/sandbox, but has been declined. qcne (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Kevsand04

Hey! I saw that my English translation of the japanese article XYZ-1 was rejected. I am just wondering how I can get my translation accepted, when the original article doesn`t have any sources. This is my first time translating an article, so I really appreciate any help I get. Considering the lack of sources in the original, is there anything I can do to for my translation to be accepted? All the information I included came from the original japanese article. Thanks in advance for helping! Kevsand04 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kevsand04. Each Wikipedia language project is entirely separate and unaffiliated, with different policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be acceptable on this one. The English language Wikipedia project generally has the strictest notability, referencing, and content requirements of any of them.
Your draft has no sources and therefore wouldn't be accepted on the English Wikipedia. Please have a read of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. qcne (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fandom page you cited says "This information could be from an unnamed book, but the most plausible explanation is that someone created the Wikipedia article as a prank". Wikipedia doesn't host hoaxes. qcne (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiepdia has several articles about cryptids. Many of these can not be proven to actually exist. The article I translated is just like those; a cryptid that has reportedly been seen, but that can`t be confirmed. Kevsand04 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None the less, @Kevsand04, without sources an article cannot be accepted onto the English Wikipedia and your two sources (jp.wiki and fandom) are invalid. qcne (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kevsand04. Existence is not a requirement for notability: We have articles on unicorns and on the Loch Ness Monster because they have been written about in reliable sources.
If several independent reliable sources have written about your cryptid, then it may meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an article is possible. If they haven't, then it isn't. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 19 November 2024 review of submission by 87.198.214.242

I submitted the page and read the additional comments left by the reviewer. I edited the submission to address all issues raised and resubmitted it; after 5 months, I have yet to receive any comment, and the page still needs to be public. It requires more edits, or if not, why is it yet to be online? Thanks 87.198.214.242 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you only submitted it for review today? qcne (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No article "needs" to be here. What is the source of your need? 331dot (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 19 November 2024 review of submission by ZAKKALLU

i am zakariya k abdulla . i create my biography . please accept that ZAKKALLU (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, @ZAKKALLU, you are not notable enough to merit an article. qcne (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZAKKALLU: please follow this link and read the information there: Wikipedia is not a platform where people can post their biography. Biographical articles in Wikipedia are summaries of information published by independent, reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

Dear Wikipedia Community/Help Desk,

I am writing to seek assistance with creating a Wikipedia page for Reena Gupta. While I understand the stringent notability guidelines, I believe that Reena Gupta's significant contributions in politics, academia, business and environment to warrant a Wikipedia page.

I've noticed that individuals like Fahad Ahmed, a politician and student activist, have Wikipedia pages. While Reena Gupta

I have gathered reliable sources such as news articles, academic papers. I am unsure about the specific steps to proceed and would appreciate any guidance.

Thank you Jeswanth2 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have many sources, @Jeswanth2. Choose three, and only three, which all meet this criteria, and paste them here. qcne (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note, @Jeswanth2, you have already posted this question three other times and been given answers each time.
- October
- September
- July
Was there something you did not understand about the other times you were answered? qcne (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am sorry for asking repeatedly.
I see two sections here. Which sources are you referring to Reliable Sources or Independent Sources? So that I'll do more research and get back.
Thank you once again. Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for clarification, are you seeking to strengthen the reliable sources sesion or ensure the sources qualify as independent? I would appreciate if can help me understand this. Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this person or the apparatus of their political party? 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do have an association with this person and their party's apparatus. Jeswanth2 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources must always be reliable, otherwise they can't be used at all. Independent and secondary sources are required to show notability. In addition, there must be significant coverage of the person in the source. You are asked to point out three sources that meet all these criteria. Please look at the decline notice from 11 July on your user talk page, where this is explained. --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 19 November 2024 review of submission by 2607:F010:2E9:15:892F:3C4B:372C:C629

Hi, thank you so much for reviewing! It would be great if I could get some detailed and structured advice on how to make the article less essay style and more like an encyclopedia. As currently, I'm citing all the credible published journal articles and am confused about what it means to take a neutral tone. Could you share some examples, like maybe one sentence from the article and one exemplar of how to make the adjustment? Thank you so much! 2607:F010:2E9:15:892F:3C4B:372C:C629 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion would be largely academic, as the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article would need a fundamental rewrite to be accepted. The draft in its current form states opinion as fact, contains unsourced statements, and original analysis. Please review WP:No original research and try taking a look at other philosophy articles. Ca talk to me! 00:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

00:59, 20 November 2024 review of submission by NateGlass23

Hi, I'm told that my article submission was blank. But I did include the following text, can anyone help me figure out the issue?

Extended content

{{AFC submission|d|blank|u=NateGlass23|ns=118|decliner=Shadow311|declinets=20241120005548|ts=20241120005157}} <!-- Do not remove this line! --> {{Short description|Financial technology company}} {{Draft topics|business-and-economics}} {{AfC topic|org}} <!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -- Mission Lane is an American financial technology company located in Richmond, VA. The company was founded in 2018<ref>https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/146594-89#overview</ref> and has raised significant capital from a variety of investors including Invus, QED Ventures, Goldman Sachs, Oaktree Capital Management and many others.<ref>https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211026005137/en/Mission-Lane-Completes-Inaugural-320-Million-ABS-Transaction-and-Raises-150M-in-Redeemable-Preferred-Equity</ref> The company has over three million customers and has a portfolio of $2billion.<ref>https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2024/02/221618-mission-lane-appoints-brandon-black-as-ceo-acquires-additional-funding-from-qed-investors-others/</ref> The CEO of Mission Lane is Brandon Black, who previously served as the COO and CEO of Encore Capital Group.<ref>https://www.fintechfutures.com/2024/02/mission-lane-appoints-former-board-member-brandon-black-as-new-ceo/#:~:text=Credit%20finance%20tech%20vendor%2C%20Mission,replacing%20previous%20boss%20Shane%20Holdaway.&text=Black%2C%20who%20has%20been%20on,collections%2C%20credit%20and%20fraud%20units.</ref> == References == <!-- Inline citations added to your article will automatically display here. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REFB for instructions on how to add citations. --> {{reflist}}

NateGlass23 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NateGlass23 the text was commented out. I've fixed it for you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NateGlass23 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NateGlass23, your draft lacks references to reliable sources that are independent of Mission Lane that devote significant coverage to Mission Lane. Your references are mostly based on company press releases. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:37, 20 November 2024 review of submission by 41.210.146.83

Article Submission 41.210.146.83 (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected already, do not resubmit. And once your account is blocked, do not edit logged-out, either; the block is to you as a person, not just to your account(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Omar Azami

Hi, How can I delete my current sandbox and start a new one please? Thank you Omar Azami (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Omar Azami, just edit it and replace all the content. qcne (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 20 November 2024 review of submission by ASAJU12

i need someone that who can help me to edit my article ASAJU12 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASAJU12 For some reason you placed the url of the Wikipedia home page where the title of your draft should be....I fixed this. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This isn't the place to request co-editors. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 20 November 2024 review of submission by FFFzzz

please approve it Azuki is more bigger than you think. you will regret and why BAYC is passed but you decline Azuki. It is unfair. FFFzzz (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FFFzzz do not threaten volunteer editors. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WTF it is very unfair and it is bias and racisms. Why BAYC pass but Azuki not consider further. FFFzzz (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove the decline notices from the draft. You have not shown that Azuki meets our Wikipedia:Notability criteria. If you feel at some point in the future that there are more sources that have come to light that do make it seem like the project meets the notability criteria, please message the rejecting review @CNMall41 and ask them to take another look.
On absolutely no account should you call volunteer editors racist. Further disruptive comments may lead to your account being blocked. qcne (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay then you tell me why BAYC meet the Wikipedia:Notability criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_Ape just tell what difference between these two and i don't think they meet the criteria so i can report? Centralize authority really need to be banned. hilarious FFFzzz (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists; each draft or article is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. If you feel that a particular article does not meet notability guidelines, feel free to take action to address that. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bored Ape yes this one thank you FFFzzz (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article. As I said, if you feel it does not meet guidelines, you are free to take action; edit it, propose its deletion, what have you. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the BAYC article has 76 sources and the Azuki draft has 8. More sources doesn't necessarily mean better, we would prefer quality over quantity, but looking at your draft I only see one source of any use (theblock.co). Whereas the BAYC article has several strong sources from reliable mainstream news websites. qcne (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FFFzzz: For the record, Web3 is a community-designated contentious topic in part due to behaviour like yours. Tamp down the adversarial stance, it doesn't help you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what sourcing has to do with race and bias. Wikipedia is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. I looked at the additions you have made since the numerous declines and the changes you made came no where near showing notability so there was no sense in even looking at specifics of the content. Now that we are here, given that you are the second account and bludgeoning the process, there are clear signs that you may have a WP:COI regarding this topic. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. As far as the racist and bias comment, please address those concerns at WP:ANI if you feel strongly that is the case in this matter. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 20 November 2024 review of submission by 188.85.205.222

Tio espabila macho entiendo que te guste los hombres pero ese hombre es mucho mas que tu novio 188.85.205.222 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be vaguely homophobic. qcne (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Damilare Okunola

My article has been nominated for deletion and it saddens Me. I've seen the reasons for this nomination, however, I believe that the sources of the citations shared, all independent, are quite credible. Also, can I ask if the sources can be social media accounts? Will that suffice as well? Damilare Okunola (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Damilare Okunola, I nominated the sandbox for deletion as it was unambiguously an advertising and promotional in content. Wikipedia prohibits promotion, and you must write in a factually neutral way by summarising what reliable sources state about a topic. Sorry it has saddened you: writing a Wikipedia article as a new editor is very difficult and frustrating if you are not familiar with our policies and guidelines.
Social media very rarely suffices as a source: they are either primary or not reliable.
What we're looking for is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss the person and provide commentary, analysis, debate, etc.
Let me know if you have any questions. qcne (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and honest response. I'll keep working on the points you raised. I read also that I cannot use an article from Nigeria Tennis Live's website - what if I have a genuine article from where which was from a honest feedback about the organization? I can share examples for your perusal. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any intel about Nigeria Tennis Live's status as a source: I can't find a discussion on our Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources guide or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. So it would depend on the context of the source and what you are trying to reference with it. Where did you read they cannot be used? qcne (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot remember, but if it can be used, then there are quite a number of sources from Nigeria Tennis Live that are credible and independent that can be added. I'll edit the article appropriately and share, but please, I'm still learning the ropes, kindly help Me with possible corrections after the editing, until I finally get it. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make a new draft in your sandbox, but don't submit it for review (that way it won't be deleted if inappropriate) and then let me know when you're done by leaving a message on my User Talk page (feel free to take days or weeks) and I will have another look. qcne (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very encouraging, thank you so much. I'll rework it and let you know. I appreciate your kind help. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Qcneso, I've just seen that my initial update was deleted, I didn't know it would come that quickly, but it's fine. I've rewritten the article but I'm yet to submit for review. Could you kindly take a quick look so that I can know what else to work on? Thank you. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any updates in your contribution history, make sure you have pressed Publish changes to "save" the text. That doesn't publish it for review. qcne (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done that now. Hopefully, I am not tagged for deletion before you get to see it. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see it.
So, it is still written like an advert. Phrases like "a hub for tennis enthusiasts", "prominent voice", "founded with the aim", "The mission of" etc etc.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: content should factually report on topics based off reliable sources. Whereas the content on the sandbox you've written might be appropriate as the About Us page on the Nigeria Tennis Live website, or an advert in a magazine.
You should find reliable independent sources (at least three) first that provide significant independent coverage; going beyond simply reporting routine business dealing or public relations statements. Analyses, commentary, debate, comparison by independent reliable journalists is the sort of thing we're looking for.
Once you've found those sources, paraphrase and summarise them in a neutral and encyclopaedic way. qcne (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. I'll go again and share the update with you. I appreciate your time and help so far. Have a good one. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Qcnecould you kindly take a quick look? Am I getting closer to the format? Just asking so that I can know if there's anything I'm doing better... Damilare Okunola (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets go through your four sources on your sandbox.
  1. Is a primary source, so not independent, so doesn't contribute to notability.
  2. As above.
  3. This is an okay source. It is based mostly on an interview with employees of Tennis Live but has just about enough independent analysis that it nudges it over into acceptable.
  4. This links to the homepage of a website, do you have a link to a specific page?
The content is written better, but still promotional in tone. Wikipedia doesn't really care what Nigeria Tennis Live does, but how independent secondary sources have covered it. qcne (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot @QcneI'll go again in getting it out with a better tone and share with you again. Thank you! Damilare Okunola (talk) 11:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Joer.Priority.Sports

How can i improve my article to get it published? Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joer.Priority.Sports. I left you a message on your User Talk page yesterday. Please read and digest that, then reply there if you had further questions. qcne (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne
I am an intern with no editing experience and I was told to post a biography about Ryan Richman, I read and digested the message of yours and ultimately I am still confused. Is there any way you would be able to help with the citations as I would like to fulfill my responsibilities to my boss. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, @Joer.Priority.Sports.
Firstly, have a read of Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. And perhaps show your boss that page too. You'll need to make a paid editing disclosure (this is mandatory), follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Biographies require in-line citations. The tutorial I linked on your talk page, Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1, is going to be the easiest and most user-friendly way to cite properly.
However, writing for Wikipedia is hard and not a very fair job to put on an intern. We always recommend new editors spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles before diving into the difficult task of creating a new article. It's like being asked to perform in a concert when you've never played a flute before.
My best advice is to read those links, practice editing on your sandbox, and come back if you had more specific questions. qcne (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an intern I am not payed so the paid editing disclosure does not apply to me. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joer.Priority.Sports, please read WP:PAID, which states "Interns are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose." As an intern your "payment" is the work experience you are obtaining. Compensation doesn't have to be money or anything tangible. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I request an editor to create an article on Ryan Richman ? Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can request it but that area is backlogged to the point of uselessness. (and you will still need to make the paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement) My advice is that, as already suggested to you, you read WP:BOSS and have your boss read it too. I'm sorry you've been put in a difficult position by your boss, but our only interest is in working according to our policies. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown my boss the article you sent me and I truly appreciate your help and expertise. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After speaking with my boss I am wondering what the steps are for getting this article posted. We are a client services agency and boss is wondering how other G league coaches articles get posted and he also is wondering why it would be a conflict of interest.
Lets just say I make a paid editing disclosure and work the referencing kinks out of the equation. will my article still be posted ? Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conflict of interest for you to edit about your company's clients. You have interests in your clients beyond merely contributing to this encyclopedia of human knowledge. To be frank, Wikipedia is unconcerned with your interests in your clients, our only interest is in writing an encyclopedia. Please read the conflict of interest policy for more information(it mentions a COI disclosure, the paid editing disclosure covers that in your case). Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage of a topic in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. We usually recommend that new editors first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how things work here and what is expected of article content. There is also a new user tutorial that is helpful.
The paid editing disclosure is mandatory for you, so you need to do that irrespective of the status of the draft. You need to remove anything sourced to YouTube(unless the videos are from reputable news outlets on their verified channel) as YouTube is not a reliable source. Your draft claims Mr. Richman has an "innovative" coaching style but has no source for that claim. The "personal life" section is similar, no sources for the claims made(like "commitment to family, community, and basketball"). 331dot (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting, @Joer.Priority.Sports, that Wikipedia has many millions of articles and tens of thousands of them are poor quality and should be deleted. As we're a volunteer project, bad articles slip through the net. So don't compare new drafts to existing articles (unless rated WP:GOOD). qcne (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne and @331dot Thank you both for the feedback and all of your assistance. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

Hello! I just create a article and also reference with some news that is a secondary source and neutral , so i don't know what i need to do in this case, can you pls tell me more about my mistakes , thanks thanks! Writer Johnc (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Johnc If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see paid editing as well as conflict of interest. Your draft does little more than tell of the existence of the company; Wikipedia articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 20 November 2024 review of submission by DonnaJRick

Could you please review an article (Draft:Richard T. Brady) I tried publishing through AFC? I found very strong, reliable, third party sources supporting this profile but this article got rejected. Please help and guide me further. DonnaJRick (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DonnaJRick. You have resubmitted the draft (which was declined, not rejected: rejected here means it's the end of the road), and a reviewer will get to it at some time: please be patient.
In the meantime, it is worth examining each of your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42: only sources that meet all three parts are capable of contributing to establishin that Brady meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Several of your sources are published by the military, and so are not independent. That doesn't mean you can't use them in limited ways (see WP:PRIMARY) but it means that they do not contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 20 November 2024 review of submission by DtheH01

The reviewer on this page said I didn't have an documented sources which is untrue. I've since added even more sources. The reviewer also can't spell even spell the word "referenced". Can another reviewer please review this page? Bill Myles is very deserving of a Wikipedia page. DtheH01 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DtheH01: You're completely mischaracterising what Safari Scribe said - which is you have unreferenced claims in the article. EVERYTHING that a reasonable person could possibly challenge MUST be sourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Couriano: Can you please take a minute to look at the submission and tell me what is not referenced? I don't believe either of you have actually read the submission. DtheH01 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DtheH01: Looking at the revision that SafariScribe reviewed, I think it's clear that at the time your draft was mostly unreferenced. Good job improving it since then! jlwoodwa (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the next step in the approval process? DtheH01 (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DtheH01: now that you have resubmitted the draft for another review, the next step is that a reviewer will assess it at some point. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 7 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,237 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

00:53, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Yourculturalscholar

Hello,

My submission for Nick Barili was declined with the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."

I have since updated the draft to include references to significant and independent coverage from notable publications such as the LA Times, Deadline, The Oscars, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Princeton, CBS News, ABC News, Popsugar, HOLA Mag, Complex, Vibe, and Hip Hop DX.

Could you please advise if there are additional areas I should improve to demonstrate notability or address any other concerns? I want to ensure that the article aligns with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability.

Thank you for your time and guidance! Yourculturalscholar (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourculturalscholar: you have resubmitted Draft:Nick Barili, so you will receive feedback when a reviewer comes across it and assesses it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 21 November 2024 review of submission by জামাল রেজা

I am unable to hyperlink the page and my profile can you please suggest that and also tell me some of them for that. জামাল রেজা (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, it needs to be exactly as the title is- Draft:Jamal Reza. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@জামাল রেজা: I'm not sure what, if anything, you're asking, but as your draft is in a language other than English, it couldn't be accepted no matter what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make it as soon as possible please...? is it possible within half an hour? জামাল রেজা (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
জামাল রেজা we have no deadlines here. Why are you on a deadline? And, as noted, the draft is not in English, you need to go to the Wikipedia of that language to post it. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though, I'd recommend against it; it's a non-neutral autobiography. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Tomdee UG

I need someone who can help me because, i try my best Tomdee UG (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomdee UG: your draft, such as it is, has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Mhamdym

Why was my manuscript rejected? Mhamdym (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhamdym: your draft presents no evidence whatsoever that you are notable enough to be included, not to mention that it's basically just pure self-promotion. Please read WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why we very strongly discourage autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhamdym You have confused Wikipedia with a website that is interested in your life and achievements. Please use a resume site like LinkedIn. This draft has been sent for deletion as a blatant avert. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Mydaemonthirst

I need to understand what sources I am allowed to use. I created a further draft 'Swindon Health Hydro, Formerly Known as Milton Road Baths' because I wanted to change the title and I wanted to be more thorough with the details of the building's history, backed up with more references. If I know what I can and can't cite then I will find other references, however long that takes. The 'Swindon Victorian Baths' article is about just one element of the building and is part of the story of the Victorian Turkish baths movement - it deserves to be kept separate as part of that story, with a cross-reference from an article about the Health Hydro. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mydaemonthirst There is a strong suggestion by Robert McClenon that your work has a better home in Swindon Victorian Turkish Baths and that it be merged there. You may wish to discuss this with them directly.
Please do not create further drafts. The eventual name is flexible and can be decided at any time.
With regard to sources, the term Reliable Sources excludes anything that has no strong professional editor oversight. This excludes blogs, amateur websites, almost all of Youtube, etc etc. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the story of the Health Hydro into an article on the Turkish baths would not be right.
As I've stated several times already there are strong reasons for my objection to subsuming the Health Hydro in an article about the Turkish baths:
  1. The Turkish baths are just one part of the Health Hydro - telling the story of the whole building in an article about just one element would be a wasted effort - no-one would look for the Health Hydro in an article on Swindon Victorian Turkish Baths.
  2. People have clearly made an effort to tell the story of the Victorian Turkish Baths movement of which the Swindon article is just one element. Surely that story should be left to stand?
  3. An article on the Health Hydro would leave the Turkish as about one twentieth of the story, if that. The Health Hydro has two swimming pools and a 'dry side' that is about two thirds of the building. The large pool hall is a remarkable space that looks more like a railway station than a baths. The small pool has it's own story - originally the ladies' pool, it became the pool in which generations of Swindonians learnt to swim. The dry side first housed the Medical Fund Society's broad range of medical services (that Nye Bevan cited as an inspiration for the NHS), then an NHS Medical Centre, then a whole range of complementary medical offerings and is now entering a new phase in which it's unclear what will be there.
I do not understand why there can't be a separate article on the Health Hydro, cross-referenced to the existing article. Then the full story of the Hydro could be told, whilst preserving the story of the Victorian Turkish baths movement.
I'll return to the Swindon Health Hydro, add more details to that but ensure that the references are valid. Where this leaves unsupported information I'll have to hunt down approved sources. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mydaemonthirst. When you say "I'll have to hunt down approved sources", you are showing that, like most drafts written by inexperienced editors, you have written it WP:BACKWARDS. An article should contain not one single piece of information which is not verifiable from a reliable published source. Not one.
More generally 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. (I'm aware that you created your account three years ago, but you had made only a single edit before you started working on this subject). ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had solid information - just not acceptable to Wikipedia. For instance, I found papers in the reference library and I downloaded documents from the council's planning website. So I did have solid sources (I now understand that these are not acceptable to Wikipedia). So the article is factual and, locally, I could back it up. Now there are one or two areas that I need to back up with further documentation that I can cite on Wikipedia. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for more in the way of usable sources. I may well need to cut some of the article that I know to be factual but for which I haven't yet found appropriate sources. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Eminrg

what should a proper documentation should look like ? Eminrg (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eminrg It is mandatory that articles are properly referenced (see WP:VERIFY) and that the topic itself meets our notability criteria (see WP:NOTABILITY). I am not convinced this topic is notable, especially as you used an AI chatbot to generate most of the text. I would recommend working on improving the existing LGBT articles instead of working on this rejected draft. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. qcne (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Thocsburg Fish

My submission for a page was denied, but I couldn't find any info in the message as to why, I have access to the historical documents and maps proving this happened, and I was planning on using those to fill the page in with more info after once I get other documents and read the already existing ones more. Could it please be accepted, or at least elaborated on as to why it was declined? Thocsburg Fish (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thocsburg Fish: this draft was declined because it is supported by only one source (which is merely listed in the 'External links' section, without being actually cited anywhere), and that source is may or may not be reliable. In any event, a single source is not enough to show that the subject is notable, which would have been another possible reason to decline this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Karnnut Ngamvitroje

Am I able to use sources from University's website to cite an information that is directly mentioned the location within the university, also why is my source considered unreliable?? Karnnut Ngamvitroje (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Karnnut Ngamvitroje. 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, while the university's own publications and website may be cited in limited ways, the bulk of the article must be based on sources unconnected with the university. ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 21 November 2024 review of submission by SmileyShogun

Just curious what I can do to improve this article for publication? SmileyShogun (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further and cannot be resubmitted, at least not without major changes that address the concerns of reviewers. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Ngiphondims

Because I'm a bigginner. Ngiphondims (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck in your music career, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 21 November 2024 review of submission by SandFrex

this artist is an independent artist that just started so technically isn't notable yet because she doesn't have any interviews and stuff. Is there a way to make her article be published? what information would you need? her social media links? SandFrex (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe means that this person does not yet merit an article; see WP:TOOSOON. Interviews do not establish notability, there must be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

04:09, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Rager7

I have been trying to get the article created but have been rejected three times now. Once, it was due to the person who said it was AI written and was biased. I rewrote it by improving it and providing more sources. The second and third time around (different people by the way) reasoning of rejecting the draft is "it wasn't the best sourced and reliable sources are needed." I'm confused because it should have been accepted the second time around.

So, this leads to question or the problem of this article: Can you find more reliable sources and help improve the information of this article? If not, I presume that this article will go nowhere as the other people suggested that it's better for this article to be on a different wiki instead. Rager7 (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rager7: the third decline was justified by virtue of there having been no improvement to the sourcing following the second decline, so it's effectively a second opinion by a different reviewer concurring with the previous assessment.
As for those sources, I presume FOX5NY is reliable enough. Rolling Stone can be a bit flaky at times, but let's assume it's also okay here. The rest look like blogs, podcasts, and similar, so I wouldn't consider those reliable.
Two reliable sources also isn't quite enough to establish notability per WP:GNG; we usually require three. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could these sources be okay for the article then? Mitch Weiser and Bonnie Bickwit: Teenagers Disappeared Hitchhiking to a Concert - HubPages (HubPages.com) NY to Revisit Case of Kids Who Set Out for Concert, Vanished (newser.com) Two Teens Hitchhiked to a Concert. 50 Years Later, They Haven’t Come Home - COMBO - The Colorado Music Business Organization (coloradomusic.org).
Let me know which ones are reliable and can be put into the article. Sadly, there's not much to go off of here due to the lack of notoriety of this event. Rager7 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I forgot one more source: Vanished from Summer Camp: Where Are Bonnie Bickwit and Mitchel Weiser? (the Lineup.com). Rager7 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Rtrtyu

You guys need to improve this article so please help in improving it. Rtrtyu (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtrtyu: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:49, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 78.134.241.82

I Like to move into my userspace, or I'm in need to improve this article so please help in improving it. 78.134.241.82 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User space does not host articles. If you want to continue to work on it, you may do so as a draft. You can't move it at all unless you have a confirmed account(an account that is four days old with 10 edits or more). This topic doesn't seem like it is notable as the sources you have are pretty light on coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 22 November 2024 review of submission by WhiteStar2000

I am requesting for assistance because the draft was tagged as not suitable for notability in Wikipedia. For now, I am thinking of decreasing the number of references in the said draft and will insert the names of official candidates there once the Philippines' COMELEC issued a final list of candidates. Thank you. WhiteStar2000 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Mapadam

I received the following Comment: "A error parameters in the references, please fix it. Royiswariii Talk! 02:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)" How do I fix error parameters? Any help would be welcome. 

Mapadam (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mapadam. I am not seeing any errors, but I do see notability. I have therefore accepted the draft. Please add some appropriate WP:CATEGORIES. qcne (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Mapadam (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Kalli navya

My submission was denied saying there are not enough references. I searched the internet again but couldn't find any other reliable sources. So, I re-arranged my content and removed some. Can you tell me what else can I do in this case. Kalli navya (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kalli navya, unfortunately I don't think this development merits a Wikipedia article. Our notability requirements are at WP:NPLACE and WP:NBUILD - the colony doesn't meet either.
I'd recommend finding another topic to write about. qcne (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand! I think I will leave this article here in the draft mode and write something else. If I find any references later, I will try to add it. Thanks for your help. Kalli navya (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck :) qcne (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8404:6BC0:208C:DA3B:8FDA:AF92

I would like someone to review submission of the changes on this article subject as since the references on the awards and nominations section are add and check it to see if this is okay so far. Or needs more improvement. 2601:201:8404:6BC0:208C:DA3B:8FDA:AF92 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And so they will. It is in the pool for review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 88.235.212.12

I can't find the 3rd item to create this page. So, help is required, and there is no primary topic. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor - if Wikipedia only has two articles with "Darington" in the title name, then a disambiguation page shouldn't be created. qcne (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also forgot about "See also" section and WP:TWODABS. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might think so, but I did not when I declined it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 185.95.206.18

Hello, I need help addressing an issue with an article I wrote for Wikipedia. The article is a biography about Aram Mala Nuri, an activist and journalist who has had a significant impact on society. However, it was flagged for lacking notability. I strongly believe he is notable due to his contributions and influence as an activist and journalist. Could you please review this issue and clarify why it was deemed non-notable? I am committed to improving and editing the article further, but I need this specific concern to be reconsidered. Thank you. Here is the link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zhewar_H._Ali/sandbox 185.95.206.18 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zhewar H. Ali. I haven't looked at your draft, but please note that "notable" has a special meaning for this purpose. "His contributions and influence as an activist and journalist" are irrelevant unless they have been written about by people wholly unconnected with him, and published in reliable sources. Please review all your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42: only sources which meet all three of the criteria can contribute to establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. If you could take a look at the Resources section, you may take a look at the 2nd source, you can see that he is notable and written about him and his contribution to activities related to society and politics. Regards. Please review it and see that the article can be published. Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Could you please consider this too. The individual whom the article is about (Aram Mala Nuri) is not related to me, I am just aware of his life attacks and threats that he has been receiving from unknown people. If you could take a look at this report written by an American Organization which is reliable, you may take into account that the article is notable, or should I just focus on that life threat since we have reliable sources available about that particular topic? Thanks for your help. Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is the link to that article about his life threat due to his contribution in Activities, https://cptik.org/articles-for-civil-society/2024/11/8/a-civil-society-activist-shares-his-story-of-death-threats-and-being-stabbed-17-times-1 Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is being threatened, it is not a good idea to give him a high profile. A ton of bricks 09:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

06:02, 23 November 2024 review of submission by 117.230.15.250

This draft has 10 sources. 8 sources out of the 10 are from Bollywood Hungama, one from Times Now but still the draft was declined stating that it does not have reliable sources. In that way if we see one of the other shows in StarPlus Advocate Anjali Awasthi also has sources from Bollywood Hungama but still it's draft was moved to mainspace. Why this difference in perspectives by Wikipedia reviewers? 117.230.15.250 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The eight citations to Bollywood Hungama count as a single source. They don't have bylines, so were probably just picked up from press releases or feeds. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Fazil Showkat Tantray

Why my Review of newly account rejected all the information about me in article is true and perfect Fazil Showkat Tantray (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fazil Showkat Tantray I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected means that it could not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted(as you already did). Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Chonlawat Yongpraderm

Bonadea said that the source is unreliable, but the source that we using is in suki teenoi Wikipedia Thailand. Chonlawat Yongpraderm (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chonlawat Yongpraderm: I think you misunderstood the "decline" notice. That sources must be reliable is only one of the requirements. The text in the notice says

the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)

reliable

secondary

strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting.

Please follow the blue links in the list above, which will tell you what the requirements are. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters little. Blocked for sockpuppetry. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 23 November 2024 review of submission by 134.255.84.144

illegal 134.255.84.144 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question we can help with, IP editor? StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Sheikh Ashfakur Rahman

zafran brand is my company and i want to add my info wikipedia Sheikh Ashfakur Rahman (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheikh Ashfakur Rahman: I must warn you, you are very close to being blocked for spamming. I have deleted two of your adverts, and another administrator has deleted at least one more. Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for your business. Please stop now.
Also, you must make a paid-editing disclosure as your very next edit. Instructions have been posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Chamber Music Queen

I would like help in improving reliable sources Chamber Music Queen (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chamber Music Queen! Can I suggest you begin by reading through referencing for beginners and using that to fix up the citations for the sources you currently have? While you're going through them, compare each of them to WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you have questions after fixing the citations, please come back and ask; we'll be much more helpful if we can access the sources. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Robert T. deGavre

I am trying to edit my AfC article on Chester Braddock deGavre. Previously the name of the draft appeared immediately when I logged in. Now the box is blank. When I type in the name of my draft , it appears in small type with a multitude of symbols. Where is the readable version which can be edited? Robert T. deGavre (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert T. deGavre, clicking on the link above (or here: Draft: Chester Braddock deGavre) is taking me to an editable version of the draft. If you click that link, does it get you to the draft that you want to work on? If not, can you be more specific about the blank box, and where you are typing? StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Robert T. deGavre (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:00, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Wangxun2

Hello, I'd like to add in a segment about Thomas Hastings starting Path and selling it to Sean Fanning later on. I have the escrow documents to prove it. It's not published in any news article so I cannot cite it, but can I still include this in the Wikipedia page? Wangxun2 (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot provide a citation for something, it cannot be in an article. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:34, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Jag612red

Need more reason about why my article was declined so I can fix this. I really want this to be published as the article doesn't exist yet if you can please tell me why that will be great. Also can you fix my map Jag612red (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jag612red, the reviewer has been pretty specific about what you need to include - if you go to your draft and read through the big orange box at the top, you'll see there are links to help you assess whether your sources are independent and secondary (click those words to get to the right guidelines). If you still have questions after reading those, come on back! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicated question moved to this section:) I dont understand why it was declined. Even though I used source multiple times its reliable and it has depth. It talks about the subject and I don't know what to fix. If anyone can help in what I am doing wrong it would help. Jag612red (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(further question moved to this section:) Can someone fix my map in my infobox. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Jag612red (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jag612red: all bar one of your sources are primary, and close to the subject (ie. not independent). We need to see multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent and have provided significant coverage of the subject.
What are you saying is wrong with the map? Seems fine to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is bar one whichs one exactly are you talking about Jag612red (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 23 November 2024 review of submission by AnimalNorth

My sources are well proven to be reliable & durable sources yet is rejected. Is this a matter of syntax or some other issue.

If after 7 years of the links in this article are solid, why are they not qualified as reliable sources?

Please advise AnimalNorth (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed draft link. Kline • talk • contribs 23:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AnimalNorth! Links to other Wikipedia articles aren't reliable because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There's a lot of information in that link that will hopefully explain better than I can. What you can do is find the source the other Wikipedia article is citing, make sure it says what the article is telling you it says, and then use that source for your own draft. Just be warned that not all sources are created equal; before relying on a source, assess it against the triple criteria at WP:42, our 'golden rule'. If you still have questions after having a go at that, please do come back and we'll try to help answer them. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

00:48, 24 November 2024 review of submission by PostRhythmRecords

I don't know what I'm missing. PostRhythmRecords (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It seems like your article doesn't meet at the requirements to be an actual published article. You are missing: Referencable sources. You need references and citable sources in your article. To make an reference use the ref keys. To learn more about references and, click this link to this article Wikipedia:Citing sources Jag612red (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:09, 24 November 2024 review of submission by MyNameIsGeorgeHale

I am not sure if the article for “Kieran Howe” has been properly submitted for review or not. I can’t see it on the list of articles submitted for review. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kieran_Howe MyNameIsGeorgeHale (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your other post, please only use one forum to seek assistance. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:31, 24 November 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:A4F0:9A00:8F1C:1D8A:2ECB:4557

I am not able to use the Move action to change the title of the article to "Southern Lights (sculpture)" How to rename the title? 2603:8000:A4F0:9A00:8F1C:1D8A:2ECB:4557 (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a note of that in the draft. There's no need to move this yet, since it will have to be moved in any case, if/when the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 24 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D

Please help in creating this page. I do not have much knowledge about Wikipedia, so please help in creating this page. Thank you 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 24 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D

Please help me in making this page, I am not able to understand what mistake I am doing so please correct my mistake 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's time to give this a rest? This is at least the fourth title where it has been attempted, and always failed, to create the article. The subject is clearly not notable.
Also, note that when you're blocked, you are not allowed to edit even logged-out. The block applies to you as a person, not just to your user account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Prince Folorunsho Adegoke

Thank you for your response. Please check, I think it meets one of the eight academic-specific criteria because the subject is the immediate past Deputy Vice Chancellor of Redeemer's University and her successor, Ahmed Yerima has an article on Wikipedia which I used as a sample to make her article better. Kindly refer to Editors who can also assist in addressing the issues in the article. PFA (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince Folorunsho Adegoke: being deputy V-C does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #6, if that's what you mean; they would need to be the actual V-C for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:50, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Idk17272727

Ariticle draft rejected my draft for an article was rejected for copyright i believe but i wanna know 100% why i dont think i did anything wrong. Idk17272727 (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk17272727 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. You were given a clear reason for the rejection at the top of your draft. We also already have an article about Christmas which details its history. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Sebdocs

What is the reason behind this? Sebdocs (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social media platform. This isn't the place for you to be posting a profile of yourself. I placed a warning on your user talk page regarding the creation of autobiographies. Even if it is not an autobiography, you failed to provide any references of any kind to support the notability of "Seb Doherty". Wikipedia does not accept unreferenced drafts. If you can find reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then include them and there might be a chance of the draft being accepted. Otherwise, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 24 November 2024 review of submission by HKFighter

Hi, I wish to resubmit this draft but cannot find the submission button. HKFighter (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HKFighter, that's odd. I've submitted it for review for you. @DoubleGrazing any idea what happened to the re-submission button? qcne (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like HKFighter accidentally replaced the Articles for Creation decline templates with the notices from their user talk page. I restored the previous declines – goodness knows the template code is not easy to read if you don't know what it is supposed to look like, and my guess is that HKFighter thought it was the same notice without realising that the talk page version actully looks rather different. --bonadea contributions talk 16:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Arota1612

Hello

My article has been refused for not reliable sources but there are books and official media. Can you help me by telling which sources are a problem for you and those who are not so I can finish a good article? I checked other music producer pages and there are very similar Thank you for your kind help Regards Arota1612 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arota1612. The quality of your references is vastly more important than their quantity. Three or four excellent references are far better than dozens of mediocre sources. Most of your references seem to be passing mentions, interviews or event listings. Your draft also has problems with language violating the Neutral point of view policy. One example is An eclectic music-lover from an early age, Lyon found his vocation to music production by flipping over the album covers he loved, followed by unnecessary name dropping. As for articles about other music producers, please name them. Perhaps some of those articles need to be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Made the modifications accordingly. Hope it is good now. Best Arota1612 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arota1612 It's mandatory that biographic articles have in-line citations for every fact, starting with the date of birth. I notice the top half of the draft has no citations whatsoever: readers therefore cannot verify the information is true. I've declined it for now on that basis: please do re-submit once you've either got citations or removed the uncited paragraphs. qcne (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Jag612red

I want to know which sources are primary sources so I can change them. I know not all of them are primary. I can easily fix it so my article can get published. Some of them are secondary so I am confused about which is which. Thank you. Draft:Qubein Center Jag612red (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one which even might be secondary is no 9, which won't display in my region. Almost all of them are published by the university or the architects, and so are not independent. 13 might be independent, but from what I saw before it threw up the paywall, it looked as if it was regurgitating a Press release, and so is also not independent. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should almost never be cited.
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) 21:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to use at least one primary source or do they all secondary sources and will this mean I will have to redo my wiki page. Jag612red (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The purpose of a citation is to allow a user to verify some information about the subject in the article: nothing else. As long as most of the information comes from secondary sources, a small amount of uncontroversial factual information may be cited to primary sources ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also can I shorten the article because I've seen other articles related to my topic with little to no references and still get it published and I'd also like to know if the city newspaper is primary or secondary because 9 and 13 are news articles with sources in them but one is somehow secondary and the other isn't. Im new to Wikipedia and I just want to clear it up because the Millis Athletic Convocation Center uses primary sources as well and I just want my article to be published Jag612red (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jag612red, please list here the other articles related to my topic with little to no references and still get it published. Maybe some or all of those articles need to be improved or deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The city newspaper" is not primary or secondary: it depends on what it publishes. If it publishes an article which is clearly a regurgitation of a press release, that is primary. If it publishes an interview with the subject, with little commentary, that is primary. If it publishes an article by a named journalist, who is clearly not simply repeating what the subject says, but has done their own investigation and written a commentary, it is secondary. And there can be many intermediate possibilities. ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Unknownkidman

I think that theses YouTubers need more clout on there name give them a chance Unknownkidman (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in giving people clout; we summarize what independent reliable sources say about people that meet our criteria. "YouTubers" are not inherently notable. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unknownkidman, your style of writing is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Our Manual of Style says Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language. I can barely understand what you have written. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Mahreen1212

Hi - Why was the updated submission rejected on the following basis " not adequately supported by reliable sources". Every source was independent and government/informative. Does it need to be longer? Mahreen1212 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahreen1212: Government sources are considered primary sources; we're looking for secondary sources (newspapers, scholarly books, etc.). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 24 November 2024 review of submission by GenesisGSE

Help clean up and write this draft GenesisGSE (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to be co-editors. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

02:35, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Warmtoned

Hello! I'm working on a draft for Sophia Laforteza of Katseye, in other words, a member of a band/musical group. As per WP:BANDMEMBER, the individual needs certain independant notability. I'm requesting general information and clarity as to what independant notability exactly means, and how this guideline could be met. This would greatly help the submission of the draft and getting into mainspace, as well as knowing how exactly notable the subject is in regards to getting it accepted on Wikipedia. Cheers! Warmtoned (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had just realized this may not be the right help desk to ask this question, please let me know if that is the case and where I could be redirected! Warmtoned (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warmtoned, please be patient and wait until your draft has been reviewed before asking for assistance at this help desk. The review is the next step. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I had figured this help desk wasn’t the right placement to ask a question about notability as per WP:BANDMEMBER, so I appreciate the clarity. Warmtoned 🕯 talk! 13:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:48, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Ms 2024 baiiiii

Beatbot is a top brand in robotic pool cleaner industry, how can a brand be list in wikipedia, thanks Ms 2024 baiiiii (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms 2024 baiiiii Wikipedia isn't a brand listing, neither is it a place for promotion. You need to demonstrate that the company is notable by providing multiple independent reliable sources. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ms 2024 baiiiii, your one sentence draft utterly fails to make the case that this product is notable. Compare it to an article about a somewhat similar household robot Roomba, which is vastly more detailed and has 168 references. Your references, except for one, are terrible. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thanks Ms 2024 baiiiii (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 25 November 2024 review of submission by 2400:AC40:61C:3C89:A194:3975:78D3:3FA4

Why? 2400:AC40:61C:3C89:A194:3975:78D3:3FA4 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now you don't have references, which is a problem. But I don't know why it was rejected. @SafariScribe? -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that was a wrong click of reject instead of decline. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Isaajibola

Dear Team,

I am currently working on an article titled Zubaida Umar. Unfortunately, I made an error by redrafting another article with the same content, which was subsequently published. This has resulted in a conflict between the two articles, preventing the first article from being considered for submission, and the submission was ultimately declined.

I have been trying to delete the second draft but have been unsuccessful. As a temporary measure, I recently edited the second draft and deleted all its content before publishing it.

I would like to confirm if this approach is the correct way to resolve the issue so that I do not have conflicting articles requiring merging. My goal is to resubmit the first article on Zubaida Umar for consideration.

Thank you for your assistance. Isaajibola (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY resolved, after user came to the IRC live chat for help. qcne (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Nabil Madi

Publishing the article on Wikipedia Nabil Madi (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabil Madi Not as presented, no. no Declined 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have resubmitted it for review. It is unlikely to be accepted, as it is poorly sourced and many parts are unsourced. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. You seem to be writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, see the autobiography policy. Also, the image of yourself seems to be professionally taken, but you claim it as your own personal work and claim you own the copyright. Please clarify. Typically the photographer owns the copyright. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Sillygoose92

how do I make this an article titled Draft: Daniel J. Ballard ? Sillygoose92 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. You can create drafts via the Article Wizard which will start them at a better title than the name of your sandbox, for future reference. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:44, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Hobodubo

I’m new here I need assistance Hobodubo (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that the person you have wrote about meets our WP:NOTABILITY criteria, @Hobodubo qcne (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 25 November 2024 review of submission by OgTheig69

why si this rejected? i dont understand. i have references. it has all the ingo on how this word started within the Twitch gaming community. OgTheig69 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept AI-generated drafts about dictionary definitions. Maybe go to Urban Dictionary. qcne (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Weasleyrian

I am seeking guidance regarding my draft of SmarterMail, which was rejected on November 22 by @Bonadea. I believe the rejection may have been premature. I have been addressing the concerns raised and believe that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. Could you advise on how I can appeal the rejection and continue improving the draft? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Weasleyrian (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first step to appeal a rejection is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly, please use their user talk page. You can continue editing the draft regardless. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before appealing to the reviewer make sure you have at least three high quality sources that discuss SmarterMail in-depth with significant coverage, otherwise you will be will wasting everyone's time. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI to reviewers, there's lots of discussion on the user talk page. This is a difficult one where the user has been assigned this task by their professor. qcne (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weasleyrian: It looks very clear from the draft history, the discussion on your user talk page, and the sources (including several that had been removed from the draft) that the software is not independently notable – and since the company creating the software isn't notable either, I don't see how there could be an article about it. I am very sorry that you were set an impossible assignment, but that doesn't change anything in terms of whether the software is notable or not.
What do you mean when you said the rejection was premature? The draft had been declined six times by three different reviewers before I saw it, so I don't really understand the "premature" comment. --bonadea contributions talk 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I referred to the rejection as premature, I meant that I was still in the process of revising and rewriting the content at the time. The company and its software are notable, as their products have been widely recognized. Additionally, a search on Google reveals books and articles discussing the product and the company. I was in the process of reviewing these materials to ensure they met the criteria for reliable and independent sources. Weasleyrian (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Weasleyrian. You resubmitted at at 2024-11-21 21:02:36, and @Bonadearejected it eleven and a half hours later, at 2024-11-22 08:38:10. You're perfectly entitled to continue editing after submitting, as you did; but you had asked for a review, which Bonadea gave. Why did you resubmit if it was not ready for review?
I am sorry that your professor appears to have set you an impossible task. Has your professor read WP:Education program/Educators?
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) 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 25 November 2024 review of submission by KellyWendorf

Cannot publish page KellyWendorf (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KellyWendorf: that's because this draft has been rejected. Rejection means the end of the road.
And in case you haven't been made aware of this yet, we very strongly discourage autobiographies; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @KellyWendorf. I have rejected it as you are not notable and do not merit an article on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
It seems you may need more notable sources to publish us. Here are links to articles that feature Kelly Wendorf:
MSN Travel
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/santa-fe-new-mexico-travel-guide-a-soulful-journey-of-self-love-wellness-in-the-land-of-enchantment/ar-AA1ttYzE?cvid=8ab2f3dbf62b4caef3a509f729eb9358&ei=8#
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/style/equus-horses.html
Vogue
https://www.vogue.com/article/how-equine-therapy-can-help-us-face-our-fears
Kindred Magazine
https://kindredmedia.org/2021/03/finding-a-bridge-to-indigenous-wisdom-and-worldview-an-interview-with-kelly-wendorf/
The Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-horse-therapy-make-you-a-better-at-your-job-1543962433
Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinaliao/2018/10/31/a-look-at-equus-an-equine-program-thatll-change-your-life/?sh=7f3fec244734
Is this enough to prove that we should have a Wikipedia Page?
Link to website as well press/podcast page
https://www.equusinspired.com/press KellyWendorf (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, nope @KellyWendorf. None of those sources provide significant coverage or are independent. qcne (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that you're missing, @KellyWendorf, is 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. Unless you can find several sources each meeting the triple criteria in WP:42, there is literally nothing that can go into an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Chethu0728

The article written for a person is a doctor by profession. He has done excellant contribution to the society. He is a receipient of B.C. Roy Presidential award in 2018. Please let me know what changes to be done for the approval of the article in Wikipedia. Chethu0728 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chethu0728 Please see the criteria for inclusion at WP:NPERSON. You will need to totally re-write this draft as currently it is just a resume. Wikipedia does not host resumes. qcne (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Sunflowerlilies

Hi there! Could you tell me what I need to work on? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Sunflowerlilies (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sunflowerlilies, your draft has a lot of content and a single source. Is all the content from that one source? We would usually require at least three independent sources to prove that a person meets our definition of "notable". qcne (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Everything is from a single source. Sunflowerlilies (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not even clear what that 'source' is, or whether it indeed is a valid source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://kurdcollect.com/index.php/%D9%85%D8%AD%DB%95%D9%85%DB%95%D8%AF_%D8%A6%DB%95%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86_%D8%A6%D8%A7%D8%BA%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D9%87%DB%95%D9%85%DB%95%D9%88%DB%95%D9%86%D8%AF_%DB%8C%DB%95%D9%83%DB%95%D9%85_%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C_%D9%82%DB%95%D8%B2%D8%A7%DB%8C_%DA%86%DB%95%D9%85%DA%86%DB%95%D9%85%D8%A7%DA%B5
Here is the single source. Sunflowerlilies (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunflowerlilies: okay, thank you. For future reference, if you have an online source, cite it; this makes it much easier for reviewers (and readers) to verify the source. And if you're citing an offline source, you need to provide sufficient bibliographical detail so that the source can be reliably identified; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this. Finally, sources must be published, which "Interviews and questions from the descendants of Muhammad Amin Agha Hamwand" does not sound like. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Wikigeekgod99

which items are problematic vs. unacceptable? Wikigeekgod99 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 25 November 2024 review of submission by 216.11.33.210

What can I do to get it approved? I am trying to publish this for a reason, not just for fun. 216.11.33.210 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Thisisnot1621

Not sure how I would make this not sound like advertisement. Thisisnot1621 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's academic, since it was rejected, but Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization and its offerings or views. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 25 November 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

Hi I have edited article and appreciate feedback, thank you JanaFerrume (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JanaFerrume: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Nothing you have helps a whit to show she is notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

00:39, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Monetbaer

I am trying to publish this page on Adam Lynn and I think the submission was declined because it appeared that I had a financial stake. I would love help updating/editing this so that it complies with Wikipedia's terms and does not come across as biased. Thanks! Monetbaer (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monetbaer: No, it was declined because you have uncited claims in the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:36, 26 November 2024 review of submission by ShrimpInAHotTub

There’s a box around the “Size” section and I don’t know how to remove it ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShrimpInAHotTub I've fixed it for you - there was an extra space before the text, causing it to display as code. I've also cleaned up the references. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:32, 26 November 2024 review of submission by 118.221.204.69

ㅁ 118.221.204.69 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1259618679"