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 JesusisGreat7 (talk | contribs) at 09:16, 8 December 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Uttarayani_Fair). 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


December 2

03:16, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Tyriopp

comment was AI generated spam? how is that so? elaborate on that please and im open to advice 

Tyriopp (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyriopp, ChatGPT and other AIs/LLMs write drafts with certain details that human-written drafts usually don't have. Your draft shows signs of being written by AI. We don't generally elaborate on what those signs are because people might use that information to try to sneak AI-generated drafts into Wikipedia without anyone noticing, and there can be major problems with AI-generated articles - things like hallucinated references, for example. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia regardless of any AI or ChatGPT use or maybe because of it? Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Stephanietheva

I received this messaage: 'Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.' does this mean I can not try to rewrite the article again?

Also I received this rejection reason: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' does this mean the person I was trying to do an article about isn't popular enough?

How can I get a wikipedia page for the person I am trying to create for? What makes someone notable enough? Stephanietheva (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The linked article is an article, not a draft, and it was published in 2023. I'm guessing you meant Draft:Ivy Cohen.
My opinion about this draft - it has no inline citations, which has a specific guide. The tone of the article is quite promotional. This page may help with that. Looking at the 4 sources, all of them seem weak. The first three of them are not independent, and the last one does not really help with notability. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Stephanietheva. Yes, "rejected" means that this draft cannot go any further.
Notability in Wikipedia has a special meaning, which is different from popularity (and from fame, importance, influence, and all the other conventional meanings). It mostly means that there is enough independent reliably published material about the subject to base an article on, 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.
If you cannot find suitable sources (each of which should meet all three criteria in WP:42) then the subject is probably not notable, and you should not waste any more time on this attempt. (And if the rejecting reviewer says that they are not sufficiently notable, you can generally reckon that they have gone looking for sources and not found them).
If you can find sources that demonstrate notability, then you should approach the rejecting reviewer directly, citing those sources, and asking them to reconsider. But please do not bother them unless you have solid evidence that Cohen meets the criteria.
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) 15:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Stephanietheva

Duplicate discussion. The original thread seems to be located above this one.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I received this messaage: 'Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.' does this mean I can not try to rewrite the article again?

Also I received this rejection reason: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' does this mean the person I was trying to do an article about isn't popular enough?

How can I get a wikipedia page for the person I am trying to create for? What makes someone notable enough? Stephanietheva (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanietheva, did you click the link in the message? It explains notability as Wikipedia means it, and will tell you what you need to find if you want to show that your subject is notable and thus should have an article. StartGrammarTime (talk) StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

04:13, 2 December 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

I am writing to see if I can receive a response regarding an archived ticket that I have logged with HelpDesk: 04:38, 7 November 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

I already added a response to this archived ticket however I have realized that I may not get a response, therefore I'm logging a new ticket.

In regards to the archived ticket, I was given the feedback that I should improve the Wikipedia page in regards to the Notability and WP:GNG policies. As the draft submission was rejected due to not meeting these policies.

As per the feedback, I have made changes to the draft and have added sources which cover the topic, hopefully complying with the WP:GNG and Notability policies. Could you please let me know if these polices are met now and if it would be suitable for me to go ahead and submit it. Any further feedback is much appreciated as it would assist in updating the draft even further!

Thank you in advance! DebugDruid (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have wanted to directly discuss with the reviewer who rejected your draft (@Shadow311 in this case) first. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DebugDruid: Submit the draft for review – that's how you request feedback on notability. The draft has not been rejected (which would mean that you couldn't resubmit it), only declined, which means that you have the option ti resubmit. Your fellow editors who volunteer as reviewers don't do pre-reviews at this help board. --bonadea contributions talk 06:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bonadea. I submitted the draft for review like you stated however I'm not receiving enough feedback to continue editing the draft.
I was told by the reviewer that the article seems like "blatant advertising" so I asked them on their user talk page what specifically sounded like it was advertising. They responded by letting me know the parts they believed to showcase this.
After implementing the feedback, I asked them for further feedback, however I have received the same feedback the second time around which hasn't helped me in any way. You can find this feedback at their talk page - Theroadislong talk page.
Could you please assist me in knowing what is still the issue with the the draft, as from previous feedback I was told to add sources to the article which I have done and now the issue is up with the draft sounding like its advertising. I just feel like I have been getting put in a ringer and coming back to the starting point without making any progress. I have submitted the draft once again as well.
Your support is much appreciated!
Thank you! DebugDruid (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 2 December 2024 review of submission by ORISEXP

Hello Community! I hope I find you doing well. I created a Wikipedia page yesterday and the submission was declined. Is there any natural cause for this? ORISEXP (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORISEXP Please see the message left at the top of your draft by the reviewer, and also read the policies linked to therein. I would ask you what your connection is to this musician, as you appear to have taken a photo of him in his vehicle. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Seblmnal

i was rejected and i want to fix the problem Seblmnal (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seblmnal: the problem isn't easily fixed; there is nothing in this draft to suggest that you are notable in the Wikipedia context. Focus on your career, get covered in the media, maybe win a Grammy or two, and one day someone will surely write an article on you. (Even then that someone shouldn't be you, though – see WP:AUTOBIO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Pancras Hogendoorn

I have added a reference which I use 3 times in the text and it now gives: Cite error: The named reference Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937) was invoked but never defined (see the help page). I looked at the help page but cannot get it fixed. Can you help me out? Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pancras Hogendoorn: this isn't strictly speaking an AfC matter anymore, now that the draft has been published; you should ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk instead. But since you're here... the problem is in the first citation: <ref name="Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)"> This is calling a source named "Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)", but no such source name has been defined. The solution is actually easier to do than to explain, so I'll go and fix it for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Kirkoconnell

I follow the Digital Civics page and I went to University with Estelle and have followed her career for a while now.

I am just noticing some declines in articles write by or about her. I suspect she tried to edit her own articles, at least from what I can tell here.

I guess I thought I would request less vague assistance. On this article in particular, it seems rather well written with great sourcing, yet it states that the sources are not enough.

I've checked them and they seem fine to me. Now, I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while now and I know rules have changed, but is there something explicitly wrong with the sources listed that can be addressed as opposed to this vague "Not the Right Kind of sources", as it lists. When I reviewed the requirements for that page and compared them to the links, they actually seem to meet the criteria.

Anyway, looking at this here, I think Estelle's issue was that she believed it was OK for her to edit her own articles, which I know is a no-go. I am willing to write the articles but I don't want to be in this circular trap of modifying an article, getting it taken down for "sources issues" and constantly fight back and forth on it.

So can I get clearer direction on what the sourcing issue is exactly so that I may address it?

All I really know is that Dr. Clements really did do research, really is a Digital Civics expert, and developed at least two concepts in the field, well the field itself (Digital Civics) and Shadow Footprints, from the studies and articles she has released anyway.

Besides having attending University with Dr. Clements, I have followed her career has it took her from North America over to the UK and am keen on getting these concepts in Wikipedia. I do science communication and Digital civics in general, and Shadow Footprints as a concept, have been great insights to trying to solve the divide we see with information online.

So I am willing to work with people on what needs to be changed, but I do need a bit more than "source not be good". Kirkoconnell (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kirkoconnell: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence that the subject is notable, not for inadequate sources per se. Notability, according to the general WP:GNG guideline, requires significant coverage directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This draft cites mostly works by the subject, plus a few other primary sources, which doesn't satisfy GNG.
The other route for academics to demonstrate notability is described in the special WP:NPROF guideline, and more specifically in the list of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. The main difference between this and GNG is that the focus is less on secondary sources (in fact, so much so that no secondary sources are needed at all), and more on career achievements and standing in the academic community. It may be that NPROF is easier to satisfy in this case, based on your description and a quick scan of the sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting watching the rules change constantly.
I think unless Estelle won a Noble prize, I doubt she could meet the requirements listed in modern academics.
I remember once that I was accused of hating Gay people because I deleted an account from someone who wasn't considered notable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Jensen. They literally harassed me online until I stopped requesting that their account get deleted.
I wish you guys cared as much about the rules back then. Well, I give up. I tried to help but I guess the whole "Be Bold" thing is just BS.
I would ask for a greater clarification, as when I review what is posted and the sources I see it hit the checkmarks you are demanding, but when you review it you don't see that, but I suspect there is no further direction incoming. Just "this doesn't meet some weird standard IN MY OPINION because, sure, it matches the words of it but I DO NOT BELIEVE it matches the words, so therefore, it does not".
I get it.
Sorry I even tried. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkoconnell "Be bold" means we want people to act, but it doesn't mean they get a pass on policies and consultation with other editors/consensus. This process is usually voluntary, if you truly feel that the reviewer got it wrong, you are free to move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, though you are rolling the dice that it will not be nominated for deletion. The main standard reviewers go by is "would this survive an Articles for deletion discussion"?
I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't care for this weird fighting.
When I religiously edited the site, people would fight with me COSNTANTLY about non-sense articles that never met standard, but the Wiki people would say "Be Bold" and keep the article.
NOW, I see a legit article with full citations that match literally every requirement to a Tee, and NOW there is a WHOLE NEW LEVEL of requirements to make an article, that cannot seem to accurately defined, but it's wrong because "reasons" and until I fix these ambiguous "reasons", the article cannot even be displayed. And when I ask for examples of the "reasons", I get no feedback whatever, or I get given a 55 page article and told to read it. Then I do read it, find no issues that match up, ask again where I made the mistake, and get zero actual feedback again.
I am just losing faith in Wikipedia in general. It seems if you are an idiot, you can make whatever article you want and it's cool. If you actually do research, try to cite things, people will delete the articles, say some vague non-sense that does not make sense in the context of the article, when you push back and ask for more explicit information, they just throw their hands up and say "find someone else".
"I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules."
WHAT ****ING RULES? Where is the problem? THIS IS WHAT I AM ASKING. I get told "These sources don't cite this", where those sources are not meant to cite that, so what is the problem? Or I get told "Not enough secondary sources", I point to at least three that were in the article from the start and no one mentions secondary sources to me again but it's still a problem.
I WANT TO FIX THE ARTICLE. But saying vague non-sense and when they ask for more feedback because it seems what is being said doesn't match what the accused claim is, how am I supposed to fix it?
If you accuse me of stealing and I claim I have video evidence of myself in my house the whole day, your reply can't be "well stuff was stolen, deal with it" and expect me to be OK with that.
Unless you are on Wikipedia, apparently. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, what is unclear or vague about the reasons being given to you? They seem pretty clear to me- but it could just be me, truly. You were even told that WP:NPROF is the best pathway forward here. It doesn't require a Nobel Prize, but if you don't think you can show she meets those criteria, the more general notable person definition would be controlling.
Note that the nature of this process is that different reviewers will see different things at different times, and may not see what was seen before. That doesn't mean it is or is not still a problem.
I understand not wanting to fight- but that's sometimes necessary. This isn't a place to just post something and forget about it. You need to be here- active and defending it at least for a time. Not everyone wants to do that- which is fine- but that's the nature of a collaborative community with different people and different perspectives. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I again stress- if you feel the reviewer got it wrong, or this process is too bureaucratic and stressful- it's not required that you use it. You can move it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirkoconnell Can we skip the stuff about whether Wikipedia is fair or not, please.
Draft:Estelle Clements has been declined once by SafariScribe. In the event that you feel a review to be in any way not justifiable it is customary to ask that reviewer. It's fine to come here, but we cannot know what is in their mind.
I'm going to have a look at the draft and make my determination. I may agree with them or disagree. I'll let you know either way.
I'm no-one special. Just a reviewer. You'll still get my best opinion, whatever I am. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirkoconnell As promised, I have left a detailed review comment on the draft. This is as useful to you as a formal review. I have noted that I am currently unable to assess the contribution her authorship of papers makes towards her notability. We need other eyes for that.
I hope that meets your needs in your original post. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Cael Thorington

Why wont you accept my article I just want a page on wikipedia Cael Thorington (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cael Thorington People don't have "pages" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles about people, typically written by independent editors. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. I suggest you focus on your career, if you truly meet the relevant notability criteria, someone will eventually write about you. Be aware that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessariluy desirable, there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cael Thorington Do you pass WP:NATHLETE? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 2 December 2024 review of submission by The Politicians Page

It's been frequently rejected, after adding references also. The Politicians Page (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you first must appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly. He seems to be a lower level regional party official; he wouldn't meet the notable politician definition as he does not hold public office. The coverage doesn't seem to be there to meet the broader notable person definition, this is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that Tumblr and Facebook are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 2 December 2024 review of submission by 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8

Hi, thank you so much for the feedback. Could you give some detailed feedback on how to improve it? I'd really like to see this article be posted. Thank you so much again for the review! 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The previous reviews must remain on the draft. It was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's still written in an essay style. If you are able to fundamentally change the style of the draft to be more encyclopedic, you must first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

06:14, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Abhayamohanty

after repeated submission it's declined Abhayamohanty (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhayamohanty: that's correct. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated submissions does not mean it will be accepted. You need to actually improve the article first Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Abhayamohanty

can i resubmit the draft 

Abhayamohanty (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has been rejected. It has no sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Ajeesh Sudhakar

Hadn't the draft been sounding from a neutral point of view. Can you help with which portion it is the otherwise. Ajeesh Sudhakar (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have just summarized the routine activities of the company, not significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources that shows how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 3 December 2024 review of submission by RJClark1447

Note: This question and the associated submission should be read by someone who considers him/herself an expert in international limited overs cricket. I have submitted an outline of my method for calculating targets and results in limited overs cricket matches interrupted (by rain), The Clark Curves, which was used for all cricket in South Africa from 1995 - 1998. This has been rejected for lack of references. I have cited 16 references made up of printed material, website material and famous international cricketers. I’m afraid that I can do no more than that. The current system in use (as specified by the ICC) is the Duckworth Lewis Stern method. The application of this method has been fraught with controversy. During the 2003 Cricket World Cup, it was invoked 5 times in very different circumstances. All 5 were controversial and the method was hammered in the media. At the end of the tournament Frank Duckworth wrote a 5 page explanation defending his method. “Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much” (Ref: William Shakespeare). I have a copy of Dr. Duckworth’s protest note if you’d like to see it. Steven Stern has (secretly) improved much of Duckworth/Lewis’ original, inaccurate data bringing, what is now his method, much closer to my 1995 original (first published 3 seasons before the DLS). However, my correspondence with Steven indicates that some of the fundamental tenets of the system e.g. the treatment of wickets, will never be corrected so, sooner or later, there will be another controversial calculation at a crucial time.

My objective in having the Clark Curves available on Wikipedia, before I die, is that when the ICC finally comes to its senses, another method is readily available. You may or may not have heard of my method (if you are old enough) but it was invoked in numerous ODIs in South Africa between 1995 and 1998. It was not discussed widely in the newspapers since none of the calculations was controversial and it would have continued to have been used in South Africa after 1999 had the ICC not imposed their preferred method on all member nations. I am aware that my method has weaknesses and I have done my best to correct them (my system is flexible enough to allow minor tweaks). Having the details available on Wikipedia would allow a wider discussion of the merits and demerits of both systems. Specifically, what must I do to meet with your requirements?

By the way, what is currently published on Wikipedia about the Duckworth Lewis system is way out of date. It is completely inaccurate and wildly misleading. Nobody could use it to accurately calculate a target in any circumstances. Unfortunately Steven Stern is unlikely to give you any more information since he is keeping his data secret from the general public. RJClark1447 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJClark1447 you don't need to be an expert to see that the "Wickets" and "Unresolved Problems" are almost completely unsourced. Where is this information coming from? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RJClark1447 (ec) You cannot demand that only experts in cricket or cricket analysis interact with you. Aside from such people being present here is unlikely, Wikipedia is (mostly) written by lay people for lay people. If your work meets the criteria for inclusion, anyone will be able to see that. Please see WP:EXPERT. If you would prefer a project where only experts are permitted to contribute, those exist out there.
I apologize for being frank but Wikipedia is not a place to merely store information that you hope will be used to influence the sport of cricket in the future by its governing body. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic with significant coverage, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. If you do not have proper references available, this topic cannot be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RJClark1447: you say My objective in having the Clark Curves available on Wikipedia, before I die, is that when the ICC finally comes to its senses, another method is readily available. As explained above, Wikipedia is not the right place for that, per this policy. Why not use one of the many platforms available for publishing original thoughts? Wikipedia:Alternative outlets lists some of these. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was certainly one of the more interesting cases I've come across on this forum lately. :)
The only thing I would add is that it might be worth flagging this up at WP:WikiProject Cricket, where folks much more knowledgeable about cricket than yours truly (which really is not setting the bar very high!) congregate; for interest, if nothing else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 151.135.89.184

What i need to do more to get it approved 151.135.89.184 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 2401:1900:2081:ECB1:0:0:0:1

Imtiaz Ahmed is a famous actor. I found his personal information . 2401:1900:2081:ECB1:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Wikipedia is not a mere host of information; articles must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the subject with significant coverage, showing(in this case) how they meet the definition of a notable actor. IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for block evasion, the account that created the draft is blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 87.116.164.146

Hi, we've been waiting two months for a review of our draft. How can we speed up the review on the music band page? 87.116.164.146 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to speed up the process; please be patient. This process is entirely volunteer-driven, and drafts are reviewed in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Qualitybeginshere

I am a newbie in Wikipedia and want to add our company details in Wikipedia. Obviously, I am not the owner of the company, but working for the company and want to list on Wikipedia. Addii Biotech was founded in 2010 and continue working in the field of pharmaceuticals.

I need guidance to approve our Listing on Wikipedia. I have received declines, but need guidance to improve and submit it again. Qualitybeginshere (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitybeginshere First, you must comply with the Terms of Use-required paid editing policy and make a formal disclosure on your user page. I'll post more about this on your user talk page.
Wikipedia is not the place to do what you are attempting to do. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to "list" themselves. This is not a database of things that exist. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, what we call notability, such as a notable company. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is notable. You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company, which does not establish notability. You need to instead summarize what others have chosen to say about your company and how it is important/significant/influential as a company. I get that you think what your company does is important, but we only are interested in if others say what they see as important about it. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted there back in February. Please follow those instructions as soon as possible. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Marzada

My submission was declined November 7th 2024 by Tesleemah with the request to "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources and to rewrite the submission in a more encyclopedic format."

However the draft does have a total of 8 external references and 6 weblink from independent, reliable, published sources.

Also the style has been adapted from other Wikipedia entries, so I struggle to understand what EXACTLY I need to change in order to resubmit. Marzada (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzada I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The Espionage section is entirely unsourced. Part of the escape section is, too. If existing sources support that information, you need to place the references in with the text. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409

this is a page for an indian punjabi artist called alfaaz ,as i created this page broader info about artist and i even added a references geniune articles about artist which suited for page acceptance Adityaksingh409 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have a single source(and it's a source of questionable quality(see WP:TOI) and you have not demonstrated that this person meets WP:NSINGER. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 3 December 2024 review of submission by JAC2222

This is a real news source in Columbus Ohio JAC2222 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one doubts that it is real- but your draft is completely unsourced; any article about this news outlet must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable organization. You haven't done that and the prospect of that happening seems low, so it was correctly rejected. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

This is my second time submitting my draft, may I ask if there is a limit to how many times a draft can be declined? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thehistorianisaac: no, there is no limit, as such. As long as you keep making progress in addressing the decline reasons, we will keep reviewing. If, however, you're just resubmitting without even trying to improve things, or it starts to look like the draft hasn't any realistic chance of being accepted, then it will likely be rejected. So it's more about progress and prospects, rather than number of reviews. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Weasleyrian

To @Bonadea

I respectfully request a reconsideration of the rejection notice for the SmarterMail draft. According to Wikipedia's Notability (Software) guidelines, computer programs are classified as creative works. Based on these criteria, I believe SmarterMail merits inclusion as it meets the necessary notability standards:

Discussion in Reliable Sources: SmarterMail has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, demonstrating its relevance and significance in the technology landscape. Wide Adoption Across Various Sectors: SmarterMail is widely used in universities, medical facilities, and government institutions as a primary source of communication. This broad utilization highlights its importance and reliability in critical sectors. Third-Party Documentation and Reviews: SmarterMail has been referenced in third-party manuals and subjected to reviews from reliable sources, further validating its notability. Presence in Scholarly and Published Literature: Searches conducted on Google Books and Google Scholar reveal numerous mentions of both SmarterMail and SmarterTools, underscoring its documented presence in academic and professional contexts. Recognition in Non-English Wikipedia Articles: SmarterMail and SmarterTools have been referenced in several non-English Wikipedia articles, including:


Additionally, SmarterTools is referenced in the Microsoft Windows server section of the MTA Software List, further demonstrating its relevance and application. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mail_transfer_agents)

These points align with Wikipedia's standards for notability and inclusion, and I kindly urge you to reevaluate the draft based on this information. SmarterMail's widespread adoption, reliable documentation, and presence in scholarly and published works collectively support its eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering this appeal. I am happy to provide further information or references if needed. Weasleyrian (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weasleyrian: We do not consider existing articles in other languages of Wikipedia to have any effect on notability. Each is its own community with its own standards for notability. We also will not consider requests made via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "We also will not consider requests made via chatbot"? Weasleyrian (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weasleyrian, your entire post from "I respectfully request" to "I am happy to provide" is AI-generated. I guess the ChatBot you're using doesn't know that what happens on other wikis is meaningless here, but now you can say you learned something about Wikipedia. Also, "SmarterMail and SmarterTools have been referenced" is really unclear. "Referenced"? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weasleyrian Where are the "multiple reliable sources" that discuss "SmarterTools"? Nothing else you mention contributes to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go!
  • López-Collar, R. 2015). Extension of the security module for the REKO Data Replicator. University of Computer Sciences. Thesis
  • Morales Vizuete, M.V. (2015). Integration of free distribution tools to perform technical support tasks for an Internet service provider. Quito:EPN. Thesis
  • Rashid, F. (2013). SmarterMail Review. PC Magazine.
  • Perschke, S. (2012). 6 Free Email Servers for A Small Business Compared. NetworkWorld Magazine.
  • Schiller, J. (2009). Visual Basic Express and JAVA Programs: Excel Weekly Options Trading, CreateSpace. Book
  • Hong, B. (2008). Building a Server with FreeBSD 7: A Modular Approach No Starch Press. Book
  • Elsagheer Mohamed, S.A. (2013). Efficient Spam Filtering System Based on Smart Cooperative Subjective and Objective Methods. Objective Methods. DOI: 10.4236/ijcns.2013.62011 Weasleyrian (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have those books to hand, do they contain significant in-depth coverage of Smarter Tools? Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do have in-depth coverage of SmarterMail, I did add them as a reference to another article, but my account was flagged by Drmies and marked it as "vandalism". Weasleyrian (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And were they at any point cited in this draft? If not, why not? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited, but changed around as I was working on the draft. I clicked "submit" thinking it would save, hence the multiple revisions. I was working with another user who was quite helpful sifting through the sources to determine if they're "reliable" or not. I send that user the list with no responses, then out of no where the draft was rejected. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not allowed to use phrases like "respectfully request" or "happy to provide" in an appeal? Is it wrong to write in a respectful tone? Also, it's quite an assumption on your part to think I'm using a chat-box. Remember the risks of making assumptions. Addressing Jéské Couriano's comment: I understand that other languages operate independently, but my point remains that the SmarterMail draft meets notability requirements because (1) it is widely used and (2) I was able to find sufficient reliable sources to for the article. These factors formed the basis of my appeal to the rejecting user, Bonadea. Other users advised me to make this appeal to Bonadea directly. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "widely used" confers zero notability and you haven't told us what the "sufficient reliable sources" are yet so nobody can make a judgement. Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to assume anything: I just ran your post through GPTZero. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that GPTZero isn’t perfect, right? The results should be taken with a grain of salt and considered as part of a bigger picture when assessing content authenticity. That said, no, I didn’t use a ChatBox like you assumed, so I think an apology is in order. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have edited about no other topic, and you seem to have a strong personal investment in it. Do you have a connection with this topic? 331dot (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I do not. Long story short, I am a computer science student at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Arizona. As an assignment, our professor challenged us to write a Wikipedia article about small software products out in the market. I had no idea how difficult this would be, now I am seeing why it was more of a "challenge". The only investment I get is a grade :) Yes, I know, other editors mentioned that the professor should've directed me to an assignment page and I jumped to the chance without fully understanding the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia's guidelines. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry that your professor has put you in a difficult position; it is a poor assignment to give you to require you to write an article and have it accepted. Your professor may wish to examine the Wikipedia Education Program materials to design lessons and assignments that are less likely to put students in this position. This is a particularly poor assigment, as "small software products" most likely do not draw the coverage needed to merit a Wikipedia article- as you are finding out the hard way. Feel free to show your professor this message and discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was all pointed out to the user on their talk page on 19th November. perhaps they need to find another "small software product". Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weasleyrian: I didn't use an LLM detector, and I could tell it was chatbot-generated because it includes a fair amount of redundant text/arguments and uses <topic>:<argument>-style writing typical of LLM output we see on Wikipedia. If you don't want to be accused of using a chatbot, don't write like one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think Wesleyrian is using an LLM here, but it's definitely true that what we might call "LLM style" is picked up by humans – I actually had my Masters students do a pilot study on this at a seminar a few days ago. And when humans use the same stylistic features, that creates a feedback loop in the input to LLMs... anyway, I digress. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weasleyrian: I clicked "submit" thinking it would save Well, what happened when you clicked "submit" was that the draft was placed in the pool of drafts waiting for review. The review happened almost 12 hours later, so it is not really "out of nowhere" – you'd made a few edits to the draft after submitting it, but not added any other sources or any information that indicated notability for the software. In addition, given the number of times you had submitted both this and other drafts for review, it wasn't unreasonable to assume that you were aware of how that process works. An article about the company that developed the software has been deleted for lack of notability, which makes it less likely (on the face of it) that the software itself is notable.
If the submission was indeed a mistake, the best thing you can do now is to edit the draft (as long as you don't remove the Articles for Creation notices) and when you believe that notability is shown in the draft, post another note here.
About the sources you post above: a thesis (I assume those are PhD theses?) is sometimes but not always possible to use (see this info), and CreateSpace is a self-publishing platform so that book can't be used. The NetworkWorld source does not provide any significant coverage, and "Efficient Spam Filtering System Based on Smart Cooperative Subjective and Objective Methods" mentions SmarterMail once, in a list of 24 mail servers. I can't comment on the other sources at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 09:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, and the "Efficient Spam Filtering System..." source is from a journal published by a predatory publisher (Scientific Research Publishing), so it shouldn't be used even if it had had any info about SmarterMail. --bonadea contributions talk 10:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Divnanoc

Declined submission. On 29 November 2024 Jannatulbaqi was declined submission of article “Frederick Charles Cooper” (an English artist of XIX century). The explanation was: “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)”. At the same date the article about the Subject was successfully published in Russian part of Wikipedia where the editors considered the same sources sufficiently competent and authoritative.

Small summary about the Subject and the References. The Subject was: (i) an English artist of XIX century, one of so called “the lost names” in fine arts; (ii) was the full member of Royal Academy of Arts; (iii) had a several exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and other significant places in London, England; (iv) more than fifty of his works are stored and exhibits in the British Museum; (v) was the only painter who drew the process, monuments and other heritage from one of the famous archaeological expeditions in the history of Great Britain.

The References. The “significant coverage” of the Subject supports by: (i) John Curtis (*ref. 3), who was a Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum 1989-2011, and presently Chief Executive Officer of the Iran Heritage Foundation, President of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq, and a Trustee of the Honor Frost Foundation; (ii) Algernon Graves (*ref. 5), an author of the most completed encyclopedia of British artists arisen or graduated from Royal Academy; (iii) Huon Mallalieu (*ref. 9), one of the world's leading and respected art historians, author of “Dictionary of British Watercolour Artists up to 1920”; (iv) Sir Austen Henry Layard, who was an English Assyriologist, traveller, cuneiformist, art historian, draughtsman, collector, politician and diplomat. Plus a few sources with lesser known, but no less reputable, backgrounds.

Could anyone to clarify me please (because I still have no reply of Mr. Jannatulbaqi) what coverage is could be more significant than coverages of two leading encyclopedists and the world`s most important specialist in this area? 

Divnanoc (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Divnanoc: there are two ways to demonstrate the notability of an artist, either by
  • the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, or
  • the special WP:ARTIST one, which requires significant career achievements and impact.
Please study both guidelines and decide which one you are able to meet, then provide the evidence to support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My arguments based on the rules of WP:ARTIST
  1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Frederick Charles Cooper is widely cited by scientists and/or art historians, especially in connection of excavations at Kuyunjik and Nimrud, exploration of the lost cities of Assyria and Iraq. Sir Austen Henry Layard, who led the British Assyrian expedition of 1849-51, acknowledged the artist`s role, writing in his 1853 book Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon that the "assistance of a competent artist was most desirable, to portray with fidelity those monuments which injury and decay had rendered unfit for removal...". John Curtis, the longtime Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum, described Layard's relationship with F. C. Cooper and his other artists (In Ermidoro, Stefania; Riva, Cecilia (eds.). — Venice, Italy: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2020. — ISBN 978-88-92990-00-5) as very complicated, but productive. Huon Mallalieu, the leading art historian, dedicated to artist an article in his The dictionary of British watercolour artists up to 1920 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Antique Collectors' Club, 1986. — ISBN 978-1-85149-036-3). Algernon Graves in "The Royal Academy of Arts: a complete dictionary of contributors and their work from its foundation in 1769 to 1904" (1-st edition. (англ.). — London: Henry Graves & Co. and George Bell and Sons, 1905. — P. 146) also mentioned Cooper, as notable painter of the epoch.
  2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Is a subjective definition. Some of the fine art specialists saw his own manner in such works like "Souvenir". The art historian H.L. Mallalieu wrote in his dictionary that "Cooper's landscapes are effective, but his figures can be rather shaky...". Personally, i find it like not as good enough to talk about unique or specific technique somehow, but somebody may have the different point. By the way, Picasso borrowed a lot of his technique, but this is not decreasing his significance.
  3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". The were significant and very unique work called Diorama of Nineveh exhibited in London in 1851. The full and detailed description can be found in a book of William Shoberl (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Diorama_of_Nineveh.html?id=U6ULPAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y).
  4. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". The only fact that British Museum has about 50 Cooper`s works in their permanent collection provides an evidence of significance (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG177486).
Divnanoc (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If the Russian-language version of Wikipedia has published an article on this artist is either up to them, and has no bearing on whether we will publish one here on the English-language one, since each language version is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know and agree. But there was also discussion how to define "significance" of the Subject, if it is already defined and confirmed by one of the heading keepers of British Museum, for example. Divnanoc (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Well. It starts to look ridiculous. There is still no good hint where and when the English artist of XIX century with numerous exhibitions, sufficiently collected by British Museum, presented in the primary, secondary, thirdly...sources supported by leading specialists, lost his "significance" and how to return it. Help, please! Divnanoc (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the draft requires some editing for neutral/dry tone I would be happy to accept this if it was re-submitted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just going to say the same. In fact, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, and a couple of reviewers have suggested this could be notable. So not sure what is "looking ridiculous" here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind attention. The text is dried (maximum as I could). Re-sumbitted. Divnanoc (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Mongoltuurgataninfo

I want to make this article for future searches and ensure it can be updated with new information over time. Please help me with advise. Mongoltuurgataninfo (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for this draft. Social media and YouTube are not acceptable sources. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources like news reports say about people that meet our criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Researchclari

Hi, I wanted to ask for help understanding which sources in this draft are not considered reliable. Thank you! Researchclari (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the organization. Is that the case? 331dot (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the References list (without looking into the sources themselves) suggests to me that many of them are not independent of the association. That is a criterion which nearly as important as reliability. (Specifically, all sources must be reliable, and most of them - and in particular, all of those on which the claim of notability is to rest - must be independent.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

01:32, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Wikiwi019

Hello,

I'm getting messages that my sources are not reliable, however they are real sources. I would like my page to be published shortly.

Would it be possible to help me?

Thanks a lot!

Best,

Wikiwi019 Wikiwi019 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered reading the wall of comments on your draft? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Wikiwi019. What you're missing 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. . Please read WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:27, 4 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:205C:7B0E:3CDF:E8FF:FEBD:D7B6

Which notable sites are eligible 2409:40F4:205C:7B0E:3CDF:E8FF:FEBD:D7B6 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That question is a bit academic, since this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. But for future reference, in most cases we need to see sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. That calls for, among other things, reliable sources, and you will find advice on what constitutes one at WP:RS and WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 4 December 2024 review of submission by RJClark1447

I have read and accept all the comments regarding my submission. However, on the basis of consistency: why is there so much (out of date, inaccurate) information about the Duckworth Lewis System and who wrote it? RJClark1447 (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJClark1447: you can see who contributed what to Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method by viewing the article's edit history. You can also see the shares of contribution here.
If the article contains out of date or inaccurate information, this is simply because it hasn't been updated or corrected. (Or possibly, some editors' views of what is correct and accurate differ from yours.) You are more than welcome to edit the article to improve it, supported by reliable sources of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Flight709

This page was just declined. The reviewer said "The citations are not independent sources to claim notability." I would like a second opinion on this, because this reviewer was recently granted reviewing rights based on the message on his talk page, so he might be afraid to approve pages and trying not to make mistakes. I totally understand, he is trying to be super cautious.

However, this musician has several in-depth articles that are independent. The TJPL News article is a 2 page spread. The York Calling article is quite in-depth too etc. Testing Melodies article is also in-depth and independent. One of his bands has a book coverage here.

The artist also has several album reviews, such as in Rockera Magazine, Pitch Perfect,Sound Good webzine, and in Metal Temple. 

Flight709 (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flight709: I'd say if you're going for notability per WP:GNG, then the sources are at best borderline, being a mix of blogs etc., passing (or no) mentions, and reviews of his music (as opposed to coverage of him as a person). If, on the other hand, you want to claim notability per the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline, then you should decide which of the criteria he meets, and provide clear evidence to support that.
This may also partly hinge on what these 'Mystral Tide' and 'Minorarc' entities are. If they are his 'alter egos' or similar, then they may contribute to his notability. Whereas if they are some sort of ensembles or distinct projects, ie. distinct from his person, then they probably won't.
That's my take on it. Others may have different ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flight709
I am a she/her in case of next time and you are right, I am fairly new to AFC however I am certain your article does not pass notability for artist, if we are to be considering their work, then maybe those references you added will be OK to certify them. However those links were brief mention with focus on their work.
I also seek second opinion when it comes to reviewing articles but yours is not a complicated one for me. it's fine you brought this here anyway, let's hear what other reviewers have to say. Tesleemah (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:22, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Gabriella Grande

Hello. Is there a way I can submit the draft in a different category such as YouTuber or Entertainer? Because it keeps getting declined as an article about a musician cause DeMartino isn't notable enough as a solo musician, but I've listed so many reliable sources about her that talks about other things than music. Gabriella Grande (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriella Grande: this is actually categorised as biography > media. In any case, that's only for the purposes of administering the AfC process, so that drafts can be searched/browsed by topic area. This has no bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, the reviewers will consider all possible aspects of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, But I feel like they don't read the entire draft or actually check the sources because it keeps getting declined for the same reason. Gabriella Grande (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriella Grande: are you saying the reviewers are doing their job incorrectly?
A draft may be declined for any valid reason, which may or may not be the same reason as on previous occasions. If the previous decline reason hasn't been sufficiently addressed, there is a good chance it will be declined on that basis again.
There is no special notability guideline for YouTubers, although I suppose something like WP:CREATIVE could apply. The one for 'entertainers' is at WP:ENTERTAINER. Feel free to point out which aspect of these the subject satisfies, and what evidence supports this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing when did I even say they're doing their job incorrectly? lol. All I'm saying is that they only seem to review her as a musician and not as a public figure in general. Gabriella Grande (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I feel like they don't read the entire draft or actually check the sources"; that would mean they aren't doing their job correctly.
There is not a "public figure" notability criteria. Reviewers look at drafts seeing of any notability criteria will fit, there are not separate categories of review. If a specific one(like musicians) doesn't seem to apply, then the broader notable person one will apply, and reviewers will see this. If you feel that the notable person definition applies and reviewers are not properly applying it, you need to tell us how. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Animexamera

It is unclear for me why the submission has been declined, and the editor that declined it got banned so I can't ask them. What do i do? 

Animexamera (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Animexamera uh... the reviewer wasn't actually a proper reviewer, and they've been blocked for sockpuppetry. I've reverted their edits. The draft is now pending review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ! Animexamera (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:04, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Brazbiog


I have a quick question about "Facebook as a source." When editing the above page, one of the awards the researcher got was by Meta/Facebook. I put the link confirming the award (https://research.facebook.com/fellows/ribeiro-manoel-horta/), and got flagged as "using Facebook as a source." That should be fine, right? This is not Facebook the social network, but rather, Meta, the entity behind Facebook.

Brazbiog (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you were "flagged"(do you mean by an edit filter?) It would be better to use an independent reliable source and not a primary source like Meta itself. Anyone can give out any award or recognition that they want- it means little unless others take note of it and write about it.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). If the only claim to notability is that they got awards, this person would not be notable. If you are asserting that they are a notable professor, you would need to show that they meet at least one aspect of WP:NACADEMIC. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it was an edit filter, but not sure what is the implication of that. I would not say that this award or awards are the reason why this person passes the notability criteria. I have found other sources indicating this is a sought-after award (e.g., https://grad.uchicago.edu/fellowship/meta-research-phd-fellowship/). I have also found a secondary source (https://www.epfl.ch/schools/ic/about/awards/phd/)! Thank you for clarifying! Brazbiog (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 4 December 2024 review of submission by EteriDvalishvili

Hi,

I believe my article includes sufficient primary and secondary sources, yet it has been denied twice. Could I kindly ask for more detailed feedback on why it continues to be rejected? I’ve noticed other pages with fewer sources being approved, so I’m trying to better understand what might be missing or where improvements are needed.

Thank you for your time and guidance! EteriDvalishvili (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @EteriDvalishvili. My Georgian is not much, but it seems to me that every one of the items in the Reference list is by Mchedishvili: that means that they are all not only primary but non-independent. 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. Please read WP:42
As for "other pages with fewer sources being approved": First, it is not the number but the quality of sources that matter. An article with three substantial, reliable, and independent sources is of far more value and quality than an article with fifty weak sources. Secondly, I am guessing that these articles you are referring to are ones that have been in Wikipedia for some time, and were created before we were as careful as we are now about sourcing; so they were probably never "approved". If you tell us which ones they are, we can look, and may well find that they do not establish the subject's notability, and should be deleted. See Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EteriDvalishvili: this draft cites a single source, the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia. Of the multiple citations to that source, one is a biographical profile, the others are catalogue entries. I don't see how this would establish notability via any of the relevant guidelines, namely WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 4 December 2024 review of submission by AlexMalexxx

Hello. Im not sure what im doing wrong, Im writing an Article about my Software i made myself, It is also Open-Source and can be found at GitHub. I often put references to my Github README page. Why my Article is being declined ? AlexMalexxx (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexMalexxx: I declined this draft for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely that there is no evidence the subject is notable, and the information is insufficiently referenced. Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, and usually requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent.
You also have a clear conflict of interest (COI), which must be properly disclosed. I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexMalexxxYour Github page is a primary source and not ok to proof the notability of your article. To do that, you need reliable independent sources like newspapers, magazines etc independent of the article. Tesleemah (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Nandichumki

Please help me for resolve this isuue . I want to learn working at wikipedia for. Nandichumki (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'be been given direction on the draft by the reviewers. Do you need clarification about it? 331dot (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nandichumki. I'm afraid that you are having a typical experience for a new editor who immediately tries the challenging task of creating a new article. That is not the only way, nor necessarily the best way, of contributing to Wikipedia; and it is certainly not the best way to learn how to edit. Would you take up a new sport, and immediately enter a major competition? Not only would you probably not get very far, but you would not even understand what the experts were telling you about your game.
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) 16:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Litigator9

Can somebody explain why all other editions of Harper's Bazaar are considered notable enough for lists to exist but Vietnam specifically is not? Is it that other editions are generally American and European and Asian editions aren't notable enough in the western world? Litigator9 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that establish that the Vietnam edition of this publication is notable on its own as a distinct topic, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Litigator9. Note that sources do not have to be in English, as long as they are reliable and (in most cases) independent. Citing Harper's Bazaar is pointless.
I suspect that none of these lists are acceptable. I have tagged List of Harper's Bazaar UK cover models as being completely unreferenced, and as possibly not notable. We will see if anything comes from this. ColinFine (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Jamiemrecords

Id like more help and information on making this more notable to be included on Wikipedia, as I feel this page should be available thank you I appreciate any guidance on this Jamiemrecords (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jamiemrecords. Notability cannot be created from nowhere: notability is either derived from the special notability criteria for musicians, or through the use of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Your draft fails the latter (none of your sources are independent) and presumably fails the former.
As such, this person is not notable at this time and does not merit a Wikipedia article. The draft has also been rejected and won't be considered further. qcne (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have redone my submission in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jamiemrecords/sandbox
I think this is a lot better are you able to move this to public? Jamiemrecords (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a version of gaming the system and is considered bad faith and disruptive. Further, you have not actually attempted to address any of the issues or followed any of the guidance given to you in the draft's history, why would it be better? Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse...? qcne (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added sources/references to sandbox. Before I attempt or ask you to submit it can you please honestly tell me what's missing? How can it be improved? In as easily as possible of an explanation so I can consider and redraft Jamiemrecords (talk) 21:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamiemrecords all your sourcing is to his own website and social media accounts. We're not interested in what he has to say about himself, but what others are writing about him e.g. reviews of his work. Nthep (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:25, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Jamiemrecords


Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to explain why I believe that the page in question does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion:

Not Patent Nonsense or Vandalism (G1, G3): The content of the page is neither nonsensical nor vandalism. It presents information in a structured and coherent manner, attempting to inform or entertain rather than disrupt or mislead. The page does not contain gibberish, hoax, or attack content that would warrant immediate deletion under these criteria. Not Empty or Without Context (A3): The page provides context, even if it's brief, and has the potential to be expanded into a more comprehensive article. It includes references or links which provide some level of foundation for the article, making it more than just a rephrasing of the title or a collection of external links. Not Recently Created or Abandoned (G13): If the page has been edited recently or shows signs of ongoing development, it does not qualify for deletion due to inactivity. The criteria for G13 require no edits for six months, which does not apply if the page is actively maintained or if there's an intention to improve it. Not a Clear Copyright Violation (G12): There's no evidence presented that the page content is a verbatim copy of copyrighted material without proper licensing. If the content is original or appropriately sourced with fair use considerations, it does not fall under this criterion. Not an Obvious Advertisement or Promotion (G11): While some articles might initially appear promotional, if they offer encyclopedic value by providing information beyond mere promotion, they should not be deleted under this criterion. The distinction between promotional and informational content can sometimes be nuanced, and if there's an argument for the article's educational value, it should be considered. Not a Duplicate (G6): If the article in question does not replicate content found elsewhere on Wikipedia, especially if it discusses a different aspect or offers a different perspective on the subject, it shouldn't be considered for speedy deletion under this criterion. Not Uncontroversial (Proposed Deletion, PROD): For a page to be proposed for deletion, it should be uncontroversial; however, if there is any debate or doubt regarding its deletion, it should go through a full deletion discussion rather than being speedily deleted.

The purpose of Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria is to remove pages that have no practical chance of surviving a deletion discussion due to their clear lack of value or appropriateness for Wikipedia. If the page in question has potential for improvement, offers unique information, or has any community interest, it should not be deleted without a thorough review through the Articles for Deletion process, where the community can discuss its merits or lack thereof.

Thank you for considering this explanation. I believe the page deserves a chance for community discussion before any decision on deletion is made, as it does not clearly and unambiguously meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Sincerely, Jamie Jamiemrecords (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty clearly the writing of an AI/LLM chatbot, and does not benefit the discussion or contentions you've made whatsoever. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
rejected, and, Jamiemrecords, these blandishments do not change my mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

03:17, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Almonday

The article was written with the help of AI and the instructions were to include items based on wikipedia requirements in a tone that was endemic of articles within. I've attempted this several time and wonder how many Grammy awards does it take to get an article accepted? Not to mention I've donated to wikipedia. Please read the article and don't utilize bots to evaluate which I suspect is how you do this. 

Almonday (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This about Draft:Marc Jackson (Composer). Almonday, it is tough to describe how many ways that you are wrong. Let's start with your suspicion that "bots" evaluate drafts. That is ludicrous. I am a living human being named Jim Heaphy who has been editing Wikipedia for 15 years. I have written over 100 new articles and improved thousands of articles. I am an administrator on the #7 website worldwide, with tens of billions of monthly page views. You can find out a lot about me at User: Cullen328. Now, onto your next ludicrous remark The article was written with the help of AI. You clearly are not aware that human Wikipedia editors are intensely skeptical about the use of "artificial intelligence" for writing Wikipedia articles. In this particular case, "artificial idiocy" is a far better description of the work product that you submitted under your username, and that is on you. Your draft bears no resemblance to an acceptable Wikipedia article because it is jam packed with promotional drivel. Just one of many examples is The new millennium saw Jackson expanding his repertoire which is unreferenced promotional content-free nonsense. Your draft is in complete violation of the Neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's three core content policy. So, the robot "intelligence" you selected is completely incapable of writing content that complies with Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Your draft is pretty much the exact opposite of how an encyclopedia article about a (possibly) marginally notable music industry figure should be written. I recommend that you delete it all and start over, using your own human brain instead of "artificial intelligence" hallucinations. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim to have donated to the Wikimedia Foundation that hosts the servers and pays the programmers and lawyers, we don't care in the slightest. The WMF and their paid staff do not write Wikipedia content. Human voluteers do. Your alleged financial donations have zero influence on Wikipedia content. Your AI "friend" failed to tell you that. Cullen328 (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing to see someone who wrote an article with the help of AI get upset that "bots" are evaluating articles. For me but not for thee... -- asilvering (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in answer to your (possibly rhetorical) wondering about the number of Grammy Awards needed to establish notability, one is usually enough. Our WP:NMUSIC notability guideline, and more specifically WP:MUSICBIO #8, tells you this, and many other useful things besides; it's well worth a read. -- !🤖 DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:06, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Pavithranarasimhan30

My Submission was declined please help Pavithranarasimhan30 (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavithranarasimhan30, Wikipedia isn't somewhere to post your CV, and we're not keen on AI-generated content. If you want to try again, please start from the sources. See WP:FIRST and WP:BACKWARDS. -- asilvering (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:56, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala

I have just submitted a new article for review and which I believe follows the guidelines, however it has been rejected. How can I be assisted? Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala: as suggested by the reviewer, remove all the unnecessary, non-encyclopaedic fluff, as well as all inline external links. Ensure the contents are properly supported by citations to reliable sources. And above all, make sure you provide clear evidence of notability.
I've posted a message on your talk page which explains why we very strongly discourage autobiographies. Please read and digest it. I also need to warn you that if your only objective here is self-promotion, this will get you into trouble sooner or later. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for you to tell the world about yourself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala Please be aware of the autobiography policy; it's not forbidden to write about yourself, but it is discouraged(and if you are going to, submitting a draft is correct).
The picture of you is a very professional looking image, but you claim it as your own work and claim that you hold the copyright. Typically it would be the photographer that owns the copyright and who can claim it as their work. Did your contract with the photographer assign you the copyright? 331dot (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. And in the agreement, it was specifically stated that the pictures would be used for such projects. Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you hold the copyright, that's fine, but you will need to go to Commons and work with those there to edit the image information to indicate that the image is not your own personal work but you hold the copyright. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are persisting with trying to write an autobiography, Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala, which is strongly discouraged and is unsuccessful 99.9% of the time. Why have you chosen to waste your own time and the time of the volunteer reviewers? Your draft lacks references to reliable sources entirely independent of Mahala (you) which devote significant coverage to Mahala (you). Without several such references. it is impossible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article. These standards are strictly enforced. Cullen328 (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the references cited. Most of them are indeed independent sources. This includes news from institutions, newspaper articles and etc. Siphiwo Mcglory Mahala (talk) 09:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Scratchysquirrel

We have received the following:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, 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


We have 4 references. One is regional newspaper, 2 are from an trade industry publication, 1 is from an independent business magazine.

For each of our references, please can you indicate which of the above criteria they do not meet, and what is required for them to pass said criteria.

Alternatively please can you publish our page! Scratchysquirrel (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, if you work for Frisk Radio, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure.
The draft does little more than document the existence of the station and tell of its activities. You need to show it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:45, 5 December 2024 review of submission by SyedTayyab560

Hi,

I recently submitted a Wikipedia draft about Dr. Toula Gordillo, but it was declined due to insufficient references and other issues. I have since made significant changes, including adding reliable citations and improving the overall content. Could you please guide me on how to ensure the page meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability standards for approval?

Thank you! SyedTayyab560 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use multiple forums to seek assistance; this duplicates effort. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SyedTayyab560: you need to remove the Amazon links and the Wikipedia links and the Podcast links. That leaves.. nothing? No evidence of notability under our WP:NPEOPLE criteria. qcne (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also stated that the photo of Toula is "Your own work": which suggests you took the professional headshot photo of her. What is your connection, personal or professional, to this person? qcne (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.
Regarding the picture of Dr. Gordillo, I did not take the photograph myself. It was provided with permission for use in the article. My connection to Dr. Gordillo is as someone assisting with documenting her work and contributions to psychology and literature for an accurate and well-sourced Wikipedia entry. If there are any further suggestions or guidelines for improving the draft before resubmission, I’d be happy to hear them. SyedTayyab560 (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no indication this person is notable enough for an article, @SyedTayyab560. qcne (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How i can do that? SyedTayyab560 (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can you do what, @SyedTayyab560? qcne (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Please Help Me.
Thanks SyedTayyab560 (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SyedTayyab560 Notability cannot be created from nowhere: notability is derived from the special notability criteria. Your draft fails the former. qcne (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you've uploaded the image on the commons claiming it as your own work, this will need to be rectified and proper attribution and permission given. It is likely that you do not own either the copyright or permission to upload and release under the license you have. You've blindly clicked through a lot of buttons thinking it would make your job easier but all you've done is made it incorrect and created more work. So my advice on writing the article would be similar: read the links people are providing you and don't click through them and then ask for a shortcut here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SyedTayyab560: if you didn't take that photo yourself, then it isn't your own work, and you shouldn't have uploaded it as such. You have no released the copyright into the public domain, ie. given away someone else's property. When you say you were provided this photo with permission to use it (of which we would need to see evidence), did you get explicit permission to release it from the owner's copyright? Or did you just not think about that aspect of it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Kestrel2Zero

Hello - Please can you help me with formatting the infobox in my draft. I would like the box to be right justified (float right) and for the photo image to be centred in its own (merged) cell. Also I would like to have the adjacent text then wrap to the left.

In my original submission the infobox was a jpeg, which worked fine. However the person who reviewed and declined my draft said not to use a jpeg and this is where I have become a bit unstuck using unfamiliar software.

I have checked through the help resources available within Wikipedia, but they are too technical for me to understand and make use of. Unfortunately my experience stops at MicroSoft Office! If someone can help me I would be most grateful. Many thanks - Nigel/Kestrel2Zero Kestrel2Zero (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are an enhancement to an article, and are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. My suggestion would be to just remove it for now and once your draft is accepted, you can work on the infobox at your leisure. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; this is very helpful advice. 212.108.134.119 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kestrel2Zero: you've created a wikitable, not an infobox. You should use a template such as {{infobox scientist}} -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kestrel2Zero, you'll see that I've conducted some major copy-editing and formatting of the draft article and left a note describing what I think the remaining problems of the draft are with some guidance. Some things have been cut or moved and if you have a specific question about a particular editorial decision I would be happy to reply but there are too many to list out unprompted. I have made some template changes as was described above so there's no particular need to tackle the aesthetics of the article. What you need to focus on is the content. In particular:
  1. There are numerous unreferenced sections that, if it were to be published now, could be challenged and removed wholecloth so I expect some additional time in the draftspace would be beneficial, lest that work is cut.
  2. Further, there are instances where Wikipedia is cited. We can't accept this as Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source as WP:UCG.
  3. While your existing citations to offline work are not against policy, please head the advive of WP:OFFLINE and be as specific as you possibly can in using these references. If they are journals, consider {{cite journal}} and give authors, date, journal, etc. Same goes for {{cite news}} for old clippings and articles you may have: authors, date, publisher, location, etc.
I agree with the previous review, the subject is likely notable but this version of the draft still needs work. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bobby
Thank you so much for your editing work and formatting the info box. This is just the help I needed. Thank you too for your comments with respect to citations. I have a lot of hard copy material that I gathered to start this project , so I will undertake a fresh review of how and where I can include the independent validation needed.
Finally, I have a big conflict of interest (COI) to disclose, which you may already have guessed. The subject was my father and, at 77 I am the youngest of his three surviving children. Please can you let me know if I need to do anything else about this.
it, will take me some time to address the comments you have made, but I look forward to getting back to you in the New Year.
Best regards
Nigel/Kestrel2Zero 212.108.134.119 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please remember to log in whenever editing.)
To properly disclose your COI, you'll need to place this template {{User COI}} on your user page User:Kestrel2Zero. Let me know if you need any help with that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing - Thank you so much for this guidance. I will action the COI issue asap! And I will definitely get back to you if I find I need help. - Nigel/Kestrel2Zero 212.108.134.119 (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; this is very helpful advice. 212.108.134.119 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Susan Hackett

I would like advice. I am submitting an article about a living person. It was rejected due to lack of secondary sources. I have over 100 secondary sources I can include. I am toning down the narrative. Susan Hackett (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Hackett It's not about the volume of sources, but their quality. References also need to be in-line with the text they are supporting, see Referencing for Beginners.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article, like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award. The promotional tone needs to be toned down; the draft should not talk her up, it needs a neutral point of view.
Do you have an association with this person? 331dot (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been formatted such that it now appears more like a Wikipedia article, but that's to say nothing of its tone. Write in bland, neutral, summary style. Then, use the links that have been preserved in the bottom in a section title "Further reading" and use them as references, following the guide at Help:Referencing for beginners. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 5 December 2024 review of submission by JarJarInks

I've been told to avoid using social media as sources (which is fully understandable if I was using them for any substantial amount of content), but I've only cited Twitter posts for timestamps. I'm more than happy to remove any Tumblr citations since they're not particularly necessary. However, I'd like some clarification on when it is appropriate to use Youtube as a source as I'm relatively sure my use meets WP:VIDEOREF JarJarInks (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I'd like some help moving the article to my user space if the article is deemed not notable enough again. Thank you! JarJarInks (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JarJarInks: As a rule, YT is only usable as a source (1) if the video was produced by an outlet that has established editorial oversight and fact-checking processes and (2) that video is uploaded to that outlet's verified (i.e. with a checkmark) channel. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JarJarInks It doesn't necessarily need to be in your user space; it can remain as a draft as long as you edit it at least once every six months. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to move it as I'm unsure I'll be able to edit it every 6 months but believe that more reliable sources will come out since the symbol is relatively new. JarJarInks (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification! I’ll remove any references relying solely on the video. JarJarInks (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Straw Holdings

why is my short article not been published, it's been days Straw Holdings (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Straw Holdings The re-review is in a pool of drafts awaiting review. There re currently ~1,700 other drafts waiting review, which means it may take up to seven weeks at present. Drafts are mot queued, but reviewed at whim by reviewers. Please maintain patience and continue to improve the draft while you wait 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Pavithranarasimhan30

Can please provide me assistance or reason for denying permission to publish Pavithranarasimhan30 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavithranarasimban30: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Your only source is his own company (connexion to subject). Even if it were an utterly unimpeachable source, one source by itself is not enough for an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 5 December 2024 review of submission by JackHarris1212

Just asking, for the Julian Horton page, will he be hyper linked in all the things he’s in? And will his page come up as other actors do when you search him? Right now, his page comes up and with Wikipedia as the source but it appears like it previously did when he had IMDb providing his background information. How does it come up like other notable people with his birthdate and birthplace on one tab and the movies and shows on the other? JackHarris1212 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JackHarris1212, links to pages from other Wikipedia articles are created by placing [[ and ]] around the title of an article. Review Help:Link for more information. In short:
  • Writing Walter Cronkite was born in [[Saint Joseph, Missouri]].
  • Writing Grand Central Station is a commuter [[Train station|rail terminal]].
With that knowledge, you can add links from other articles by placing the [[ and ]] around mentions of Julian Horton. Best of luck, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 5 December 2024 review of submission by 81.174.155.168

Regarding rejection due to independence:

  • I've added what independent secondary sources I can find but the label is very small and not exactly press-seeking...
  • for the artists (Bandcamp and Discogs obviously being under artist control)
    • I've had to resort to Discogs for most (removing the links to most of the Bandcamp pages)
    • a couple have had news mentions being with Rockosmos (Sel, of course, but also Awooga, who I'd struggled with), which I got from Google News search
    • the rest don't get much or any news mention, and nothing clearly independent linking from the group to the label
    • Sel I've left the Bandcamp link for as it gives a different location from Discogs
    • PFANG... well, it's only Rockosmos who know of them...
  • I've added stub markers on this basis

Is there anything I could actually do beyond this?

-- Peter 

81.174.155.168 (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to demonstrate that this business is notable according to the WP:NCORP guideline. So far there is no evidence of that. I cannot comment whether this is possible or not, depends on whether you find suitable sources. (Judging by what you say about it being "very small and not exactly press-seeking", I'm guessing not.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- that's fair enough. I don't think they'll be notable unless the business can expand its horizons. 81.174.155.168 (talk) 17:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 5 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:207:184:4610:7076:A1A0:10D7:261

The last rejection said that the sources were not reliable. That comment was vague. I'm not sure which source was unreliable. Is it just this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabul_Medical_University ? 2601:207:184:4610:7076:A1A0:10D7:261 (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (being user generated), and should almost never be cited. In any case Kabul Medical University does not mention Dr Ali, and would be completely useless as a citation for that reason as well.
It is unfortunate that the standard message that reviewers used mentions only "reliable": sources are required to be reliable, but that is not the only requirement. Most sources (and in particular, all sources being used to establish that the subject of the article is notable) must also be independent of the subject.
Your reference no 1 looks as if it might well be a satisfactory source, but we need more than one. Your other references are probably all reliable (though it's not clear how much oversight there is on the directory sites), but they all fail the other two criteria of being independent, and having significant coverage of Ali.
All the sources used to establish notability need to pass the three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:58, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Cockomelon

what can i do to improve it so it can be published Cockomelon (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop writing blatant hoax/vandalism on the encyclopaedia? qcne (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 5 December 2024 review of submission by JackHarris1212

Hey, for the Julian Horton page… how long will it take until his name comes up in search bar? When I search it, nothing comes up as of now. JackHarris1212 (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking about drafts, not articles, the general Help Desk is better for this. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the Google (or other external search engine), we cannot tell. The article was only moved to mainspace five hours ago, so search engines may not have indexed it yet. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Daudasikiru

I need help to accept my Sandbox and put me through Daudasikiru (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Estermoyb

hI! My draft was rejected. I believe I have made all the necessary changes to ensure a neutral tone and remove any promotional language. To the best of my knowledge, all claims are supported by references. This is my first Wikipedia article. Could someone please review it and let me know if any further adjustments are needed before I resubmit it? Estermoyb (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Estermoyb. The draft has not been rejected (which would be the end of the road) but declined (which means that you have an opportunity to work on it).
Unfortunately, creating an article in Wikipedia is a much more difficult task than most people realise. 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.
Sources that are to be used to establish that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability need to be not just reliable, but also independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject.
I haven't looked through all your citations, but I can see that several of them are problematic. In the first few citations I can see:
  • A work by Belmonte, which is not independent
  • A citation to (Catalan) Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source
  • Publications by institutions of which he is or has been an employee, a member, or a prize-winner: these are not independent.
Some of those (but not Wikipedia) may be cited to support a small amount uncontroversial factual information about Belmonte, but the bulk of the article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with Belmonte have published about him in reliable places.
Please see golden rule for a summary of the standards that most of your sources should meet. ColinFine (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was my first article but I’m a medical writer so I am used to search for information and verify its credibility. I used references “by Belmonte” as he is an author. Also, I thought that the Wikipedia reference would be accepted as the Catalan article would have gone through the same review process than this article. Belmonte is part of most of the scientific organisations relevant to his area of study and was the founder of different research organisations. Not using any references related to them doesn’t make any sense. 2.97.150.19 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please remember to log in whenever editing.)
Works authored by the subject, and organisations with which the subject is associated, are close primary sources, which in most cases cannot establish notability, although they can usually be used to verify non-contentious facts.
I've no idea what review processes, if any, the Catalan-language Wikipedia employs, but to assume that what's good for them is automatically good for us is unfounded, as each language version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. (I can also tell you that the referencing in ca:Carlos Belmonte Martínez would be unlikely to pass muster here.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:54, 5 December 2024 review of submission by Lilmami123

hello, I've been editing after editing just for my draft to be published but every time it's the same problem. my references are not valid I find this to not be fair because I interviewed Cristal Steverson herself and got all the info from her please tell me what to do to make this valid Lilmami123 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable third party citation. Interviewing somebody yourself, as far as I know, is not a reliable source.
There are tonnes of other problems, e.g. it is not from a neutral point of view and most of it is basically promoting the subject. In fact, I even doubt if it passes the notability guidlines. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lilmami123, your interview of Steverson cannot be used on Wikipedia. It is a violation of No original research, which is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there is uncertainty regarding the reliability of my interview opportunity with Crystal Steverson, as I have come across conflicting information on various websites. Some sources are on your blacklist, while others provide misleading or inaccurate details. Such inconsistencies can naturally lead to confusion. To address any concerns, I believe it is best to contact the individual directly about whom I am writing the article. Lilmami123 (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lilmami123 Wikipedia articles are typically written without any involvement from, or even the knowledge of, the subject. Interviews- even ones not conducted by the editor- do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews ARE NOT a reliable source. Also lack of notability may have contributed to your article's rejection. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 6

00:05, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Gattofr

Hi! I would like to understand the rationale for rejection. This is a large organization as clearly demonstrated by the independent sources (e.g. NATO uses this institute to operate their start-up incubator program, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences co-administer an awards with them, etc.). It is even featured by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs [1]. Thanks! Gattofr (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not rejected, simply declined. I am not the reviewer but i would suggest getting more third party sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:02, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Echowanderer43

Can someone please help me understand what I need to do to get my page accepted. The topic is biography for Michael Cristiano, who is referred to on other wiki articles including The Seekers, Judith Durham, and Mirusia. Feedback included improvement needed for incline citations, which I believe to have been added according to guidelines.

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

ABC is a reliable source, and Noise11 was cited which has been deemed to be a reliable source on other wiki pages.

Any help would be appreciated. Echowanderer43 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add inline citations. Not that the sources are unreliable, literally everything outside the summary has no citations.
Also advice: Just that a website was used for citing on another wiki page does not make it reliable. I have seen tonnes of unreliable sources on other pages before Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Adding a citation at the end of a sentence is not an inline citation? For example:
"Over the course of his career, Cristiano has worked with notable Australian and international artists and has been involved in both solo projects and collaborations. Cristiano joined The Seekers in 1988 as Guitarist, and in 1992 as their Music Director and Producer (citation was added here)."
I went to cite at the end of the sentence, and added an auto citation. Should I be doing this differently? Echowanderer43 (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Put summaries in the main body of the draft. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I shouldn't have sub-headings, if I have understood correctly? Echowanderer43 (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, just add citations where the Headings are
the problem is not the sub headings, it is that there are no citations there Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Echowanderer43: Subheadings are fine to have, and inline citations should not be placed in or next to the headings. An inline citation is indeed, as you suggested above, placed at the end of a sentence or a paragraph supported by the cited source. The issue that the reviewer pointed out was that there are no such citations for several of the sub-sections. If that information is in fact supported by sources that are already in the draft, you'll need to help the reader understand this by re-using the citation, as you have done for instance with reference 2 in the current version of the draft. --bonadea contributions talk 10:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, this is most helpful.
Double checking, I have correctly added inline citations where needed, but need to add inline citations to paragraphs where there are none. Echowanderer43 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now, still some areas needing citations but overall huge improvement Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I gave it an overhaul and hopefully will be good to go, now it has been submitted. Thanks to all for your help. Echowanderer43 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:59, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

May I ask if there is a way to directly respond to comments on the draft(other than invisible comments)? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: Use the draft talk page, Draft talk:7th Marine Brigade. --bonadea contributions talk 06:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:21, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Keithk79

what is wrong with the way I have written this submission? Keithk79 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keithk79, a biography of a living person like Lawson requires several references to reliable sources entirely independent of Lawson that devote significant coverage to Lawson. See WP:NPERSON. His own website is not independent. Passing mentions are not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:55, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Simmopa

Submission declined Simmopa (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted references to the official WWFF websites, I am unclear why the submission has been declined Simmopa (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simmopa, please understand 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) 14:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's because you're not referencing independent sources. The WWFF is valid but doesn't help establish notability for the subject itself. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Bolaji abegi

@Vanderwaalforces: called the page dubious, and That I am paid.

Those are serious allegations that you can't just make up.

The references there are at least notable.


@Vanderwaalforces: Should remove those comments for a more transparent reviewer. 

Bolaji abegi (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you for free that those sources are entirely dubious. Wikipedia is not for things that you and/or your friends made up. This whole event started from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ondo State Youth Network for anyone who needs context. While you’re not a participant there, you might just be connected somehow.
There’s no way one would randomly write about this subject with such dubious sources. I’d advise you to focus elsewhere if you’re truly here to build an encyclopedia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:51, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Saksham Singh Yogi

When this draft will be public This is the draft of most popular hindu religion Saintknown as Jagadguru Shankaracharya Avimukteshwaranand. Saksham Singh Yogi (talk) 06:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saksham Singh Yogi: I can't say when it will be reviewed; we have over 1,500 drafts awaiting review, and they are not reviewed in any particular order.
What I can tell you is that when reviewed, this draft will almost certainly be declined, because it is insufficiently referenced. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict requirements for referencing, with pretty much every statement needing to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable published source. This draft has entire sections without a single citation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft also borders on a hagiography both in tone and content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:17, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Zygor

I have submitted the article as per the requirements, including keeping it neurtral as an encyclopedia article. I am submitting this specific page as NekNomination is all over Wikipedia including a South African edition that was changed and initiated by this person named Brent Lindique. The reason it existed and it made the news on CNN, Sky News, etc. and I wanted to give credit. What else can I do? There are so many references to this initiation? Perhaps your assistance can help as the article provides proof and credit to the person responsible for the NekNomination in South Africa. Thanks for your help. 

Zygor (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zygor: I'm not quite sure what exactly you're asking. This draft was reviewed, and declined. Your next steps should be to improve it based on the feedback, and then resubmit it for another review. That's "what else [you] can do". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Simarx13

need help to fix Simarx13 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simarx13 what exactly do you need help fixing? The draft has been declined as most of its sources are not reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Caalou

Hi! I'm not sure what to do next to make this draft better. I'm guessing I should delete the unreliable sources? Can I still leave the information in the article, in the hope that someone can find a better source for it later? I don't have a lot of experience with creating articles, so any help/advice is appreciated, thanks! Caalou (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caalou: indeed you should not be citing non-reliable sources. And no, you cannot leave the information there, if it isn't sufficiently supported (ie. not at all, or only by non-reliable sources). In all articles, but especially so in articles on living people, everything must be verifiable from reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 86.129.173.234

Hi there, one of the reasons for the submission being denied what because of the sources. Please could you help me understand the kinds of sources that would be better to reference? In particular for things such as the ownership and acquisition, would PR pieces not suffice?

Thanks 86.129.173.234 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point about sources is that this draft only cites primary ones, which do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about this business and what makes it worthy of note. In fact, the draft should mainly consist of summary of such sources' coverage. Currently this is written entirely from the company's point of view, and basically reads like a corporate presentation or brochure, which makes it inherently promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand 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) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:E9BE:FE69:62DC:E3B8

This page matches the name of the tourist attraction, amusement park or landmark. 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:E9BE:FE69:62DC:E3B8 (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your question is, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. The draft does little more than state that this attraction exists. 331dot (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continually removed my decline notices, which is disruptive. I gave you advice on how to prove notability but you seem to want to ignore it, thus wasting review time.
If you find more sources, let me know. qcne (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:07, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Naimahmu

I made significant changes to prepare the page for resubmission and I can't find any of the work I did. Naimahmu (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naimahmu did you press the "Publish changes" button? Edits to Wikipedia pages do not automatically save. You must click "Publish changes" to publish the changes you've made to the page. Your browser cache can also sometimes become buggy and loose work, so you should click Publish changes regularly. qcne (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, unfortunately, there are no other edits in your contribution history in the last few days, so it looks like you may have lost any work you did. qcne (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sigh, yes, I did click the "publish changes" each time. Is there any chance that one version overrides another? As in perhaps the page moving from my draft to the new category by the reviewer on 11/1 somehow made one version, the one I was working on, delete? Naimahmu (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, @Naimahmu- I can't find any other edits in your contribution history. Could you check your browser history to see if perhaps you edited something while logged out? qcne (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Sillycone 1

I need help changing the name of the page Sillycone 1 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. It will be placed at the proper title when accepted. Before you worry about the title, you need to provide your sources. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 6 December 2024 review of submission by 87.116.167.45

Hi, how can we speed up the process of confirming our publication? 87.116.167.45 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to guarantee a speedy review. Do you have a particular need for one? If you are a band member, please see conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 6 December 2024 review of submission by KieranMO

I am requesting submission of the draft page of Motability Operations Ltd. If anyone could help look at this/review - please let me know :) KieranMO (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KieranMO You need to click the "submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top of the draft. However, it is not likely to be accepted, as it seems to be exclusively sourced to the company website. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, and show how it is notable.(specifically a notable company)
You declared a conflict of interest, if you work for this company, you must instead make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 6 December 2024 review of submission by TheMostTrustfull

What needs to change for this article to be posted TheMostTrustfull (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @TheMostTrustfull. It's been rejected and won't be considered further. Wikipedia isn't a place to write AI-generated drafts about random people. qcne (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Brianda (Wiki Ed)

Hello, Looking for additional opinions/reviewers on the notability of the drafts Gabe Gomes, Osvaldo Gutierrez and Ryan Emanuel to see whether they satisfy WP:Basic. Thanks yall. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Brianda (Wiki Ed), from a quick pass of all three, I'm not seeing coverage that would immediately assume notability given the criteria at WP:NPROF (please point out if you think I've missed something). I think these reviews will require an in-depth analysis of their sources and might need to get by on the WP:GNG if they can't meet NPROF. Are these for a course with a timeline? I have a softspot for the Wiki Ed program so if I get a chance I'll try and take a closer look soon. Best, Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Brianda (Wiki Ed): I've done a review of the first one but I think they are all going to be about the same, I'm not seeing these as meeting the GNG, NPROF, or NBASIC guidelines unless someone wants to argue the extent of the trivial coverage surpasses the concerns given the lack of significant coverage, but I think this would need to be an argument made at AfD. I see that these are all draftified articles, I don't think I would've draftified them but I don't know if theres enough to pass them at AFC. As they've been draftified, there's always the option to dispute that, but I don't presently see these subjects as being notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 6 December 2024 review of submission by Ranchella

the company is actually notable, how can i get it approved? Ranchella (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ranchella: your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It was determined not notable because the company has only received coverage about their funding round. Corporations need to actually pass the notability test set out at WP:NCORP, which your draft has not done, and which the company is not able to presently do. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 7

06:04, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Almonday

For some reason I cannot get an approved article on wikipedia. If you have successful experience with it I'd like to know your rates. Please contact. Almonday (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Almonday: this help desk is not a marketplace for hired guns. Personally I wouldn't recommend using paid editors under any circumstances, but if you feel you must, you'll need to find a different forum for recruiting one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Almonday. If you're even contemplating paying somebody to write an article (presumably about Marc Jackson) that strongly suggests that you are here for the purpose of promotion (i.e., telling the world about something). Please be aware that promotion of any kind is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. An article about Jackson is possible only if he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - and if there ever is an article about him (whoever writes it) it will not be based on what he or his associates say or want to say, but on what people wholly unconnected with him have chosen to publish about him in reliable places - whether he likes what they say or not. See an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.
I also endorse DoubleGrazing's warning: most people offering to edit Wikipedia for money are scam merchants: see WP:SCAM. ColinFine (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:41, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Yodawriter

I feel that I have put in some more notable sources now. Is it enough yet? Yodawriter (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yodawriter: you have resubmitted the draft, so will get an assessment and feedback when a reviewer gets around to reviewing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Kbss19d

Can any please help me with this Kbss19d (talk) 09:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbss19d: sure. You need to support the information with reliable sources, so that it can be verified. You need to remove every single inline external links from the text. And last but by no means least, you need to provide evidence that this organisation is notable per the WP:ORG guideline. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks let me try Kbss19d (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have submitted reference as well as from external links apart from government sites, but permanently blocked Kbss19d (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Kbss19d

can please let me know Kbss19d (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbss19d what would you like to know? The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Did you read the advice you received above? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes that links where from all government sites, but later i provided 3 links from different companies like Tv, education agent as well some other link Kbss19d (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources are listings of the college and not significant coverage. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Royaloaksschoolking

Because He Is Youngest Businessman Royaloaksschoolking (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Royaloaksschoolking. Being the youngest businessman does not merit an article under our notability policy for people. qcne (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Naman Nanda

i need to know that what type of refrence will be feasiable for a approval Naman Nanda (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly NOT Linkedin.com. Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Bollysocialmedia

Please Accept Bollysocialmedia (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:09, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

Hello I need assistance for this draft because the comments from the editor who rejected it are not specific enough, and I feel this rejection is unfair, especially considering the fact that I had already rewritten this draft to address issues raised by another reviewer. I have never faced such issues before with other articles I wrote for wikipedia Steyncham (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steyncham it has been declined, not rejected. You can improve and re-submit for review. qcne (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:41, 7 December 2024 review of submission by JesusisGreat7

I want to know that the draft made by me is enough to be considered a long article JesusisGreat7 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JesusisGreat7, it's been successfully submitted for review - you now need to wait for a volunteer reviewer to reviewer it. This may take a few months.
However: you should remove all emotive language in the draft, like "bustling", "passionate speeches" etc. qcne (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure! JesusisGreat7 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:06, 7 December 2024 review of submission by RandomItalianAviator

If I can't put it on Wikipedia, then where should I put something like this? RandomItalianAviator (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomItalianAviator That's for you to find out. Wikipedia doesn't host made up things, we're a serious encyclopaedia. Try making a blog or looking at Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets qcne (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sir. Im so sorry, I'll try not to do it again. Sorry for the inconvenience! RandomItalianAviator (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, merry Christmas!@ RandomItalianAviator (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:54, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Efsaneturan

our last draft should be suitable Efsaneturan (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Efsaneturan it has been deleted, so it clearly wasn't. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:49, 7 December 2024 review of submission by Toptier5stars

Tough that it got rejected, but I am requesting assistance on how to move my draft into my user page. Toptier5stars (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toptier5stars moving it to userspace wouldn't change much - it'd still be rejected. Still, follow the directions at Help:Move if you'd like to do it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. I'm looking to have it under my userspace, I don't plan to resubmit it. Toptier5stars (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've moved it to User:Toptier5stars/Touhou Mystia's Izakaya. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 8

09:16, 8 December 2024 review of submission by JesusisGreat7

Hi, I just want to know is my draft still not suitable for the submission pls I need assistance to improve it JesusisGreat7 (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1261855620"