Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


July 26

[edit]

04:16, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Asyrofazman

[edit]

I good person Asyrofazman (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asyrofazman, I am sure you're a wonderful person, but you are not notable by Wikipedia standards - and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:41, 26 July 2024 review of submission by 2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9

[edit]

tell me where i done mistake 

2405:201:A427:C016:7099:40F8:31A5:9EC9 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please log into one of your accounts and ask again? This whole thing is getting a bit silly, with multiple drafts, multiple user accounts, etc., and we need to start sorting out this mess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:15, 26 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B

[edit]

Yes 2001:D08:1285:B74:1:0:58CE:17B (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SONYBIJI/sandbox

[edit]

hi its my first article .can you tell me my mistake in this article SONYBIJI (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SONYBIJI: assuming you mean User:SONYBIJI/sandbox, this was previously declined and subsequently deleted as promotional, and this time declined as blank.
What is your relationship with this 'Centre for Research on Cyber Intelligence and Digital Forensics (CRCIDF)'? I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:17, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος

[edit]

Hi there please guide me so i can understand the issues that came up with the article i wrote so i can fix them because i cannot understand where is the problem. Γεώργιος Χρυσόπουλος (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just answered this on my talk page. Please don't ask in many places, it just causes extra work and confusion. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Arafatislamontor

[edit]

Why my bio data was rejected? and how can i add myself on wikipedia? Arafatislamontor (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Your 'bio data'(that's a weird way of saying autobiography) was deleted because it was pure self-promotion.
  2. You don't. You are likely not notable, and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Mtrexm

[edit]

Hello, I'm hoping to clarify why this draft was declined. I cited several peer-reviewed publications. Is it just a formatting issue? Any help would be much appreciated, thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mtrexm: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that corroborates it or (failing that) removed outright. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, so even things like where they went to school? I see several spots in the beginning now that could use citations if that is the case. Thank you! Mtrexm (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even things like where they went to school, their birthday and where they were born, etc. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you, I will fix it. I really appreciate the help. Mtrexm (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 26 July 2024 review of submission by Scholar.me.Squad

[edit]

Hello, with regard to my article's appearance seeming more like an advertisement than encyclopedia content, I am doing my best to model it from existing Wikipedia pages, such as this one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearanceJobs You'll note the similar style, similar citations, etc. I am happy to work on this article of mine more and do my very best to bring better scholarship to the article. I am trying to create a page that shows in an informative way the work of this business and how it is solving for a unique Department of Defense need, much the same way ClearanceJobs Wikipedia page shows how it does the same for the broader intelligence community. Please guide me so I can improve and meet standards of Wikipedia.

Most Kindly, Anthony Niles Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware in citing other articles to justify yours, see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.
Your main issue is that you have no sources other than the company website. The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. We don't want to know what the company says about itself, we want to know others say about it.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance. I have since scrubbed the document of any self referencing citations and have included proper citations that bring into the article good quality references rather than things that relate to the article. I will do further research and see what I can find as to other outside references and sources that have published about jobswithdod.com to support the article. Scholar.me.Squad (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

[edit]

Wan Muhammad Asyrof Bin Wan Azman

[edit]

Wan Muhammas Asyrof Bin Wan Azman is birth at 28 June 2006.Wan Muhammad Asyrof is a political figure at PAS(Parti Islam Semalaysia).Her mother is named Maziah binti Majid and his father is named Wan Azman Bin Wan Yusoff.He now lived at Kampung Alur Mak Bah 23000,Dungun,Terengganu,Malaysia. Asyrofazman (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asyrofazman: nowhere in that is there a question. And Draft:Wan Muhammad Asyrof Bin Wan Azman has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further (in case you were wondering). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha

[edit]

I am seeking assistance for feedback on my recent submission. I would like to address the concern regarding the subject's notability and the coverage in reliable, secondary sources.

The entire article focuses on the author and provides extensive information. In addition to the online references provided, there are also significant offline sources that I have cited, including reputable newspaper articles. These sources offer in-depth coverage and are crucial in establishing the subject's notability.

Furthermore, I have previously communicated with a reviewer who declined my article for similar reasons. I had ermailed him through the reviewer's talk page email i found and provided attachments of all offline resorces i had in which he advised that the inclusion of offline sources is acceptable and can be used to support the subject's notability.

I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if there are any specific adjustments or additional information required to facilitate the approval of the article.

Thank you for your consideration. Rasilshrestha Rasilshrestha (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasilshrestha: you say you're seeking assistance, but it's not clear what sort of assistance you're asking for? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
I was seeking assistance regarding my article not adequately being supported by reliable sources and that the 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.
I have added sources to some News Portal of Nepal various articles published in NepalKhoj , Kantipur , Annapurna Post etc. The articles i have added as refrences are about the author himself or his literature works in field of Nepali Literature.Also I had emailed Fade258 [e-mail address redacted] regarding the offline resources i had collected from old newspapers and also sent him the images as attachment and was told that i could add them to my article. I then resubmitted my article, it was again denied by SafariScribe with the same reasons.
So, can you please help me out.
Thank You, Rasilshrestha (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rasilshrestha:. Sorry for late response. I appreciate your work but still that draft needs reliable and independent sources to the subject. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Nycamylee

[edit]

Hi, I am still a beginner to Wikipedia. I did my submission for an Article for Creation. And I thought I have inserted enough Newspaper articles and the references from reliable sources. But it still gives me these messages.

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

We have a case of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT here. The foundation alone contains information with bare sources more than the biography itself. Please provide reliable sources citations to the content.

Honestly I don't quite understand what it requires more. Could you please advise me what I should to do pass the requirements? 

Nycamylee (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycamylee: Everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:51, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Collins P Mabasa

[edit]

Article has been rejected Collins P Mabasa (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Collins P Mabasa yes, it has, and it will be deleted soon. There is nothing to suggest that you are notable (another Wikipedia article and your company's website don't establish notability), and even if you were, you shouldn't be writing about yourself anyway. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:20, 27 July 2024 review of submission by TonyGadreal

[edit]

I can't uploaded my article TonyGadreal (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected due to refusal to address the reviewers' criticisms of it and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyGadreal: Re-signing for botched ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 27 July 2024 review of submission by SisterPhraed

[edit]

Nearly all of my citations are from print newspapers and can be found online - I'm not sure why these are not acceptable. SisterPhraed (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SisterPhraed: From the looks of it you're missing required bibliographical information for the lot of them, and unnecessarily (and confusingly) merging multiple sources into one cite:
  • Cite 1 is missing byline
  • Cite 2 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources (each of these needs to be its own cite)
  • Cite 3 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources (one of which is also missing a page number)
  • Cite 4 is missing byline
  • Cite 5 is a malformed URL
  • Cite 6 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources (two of which are also missing page numbers)
  • Cite 7 is missing byline and page numbers
  • Cite 8 is missing byline
  • Cite 9 is missing byline, edition, work, and page numbers (if a periodical) and author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and ISBN/OCLC# (if a book)
  • Cite 10 is missing bylines and seems to be citing four separate sources (two of which are also missing page numbers)
  • Cite 11 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources
  • Cite 12 is missing bylines and seems to be citing seven separate sources
  • Cite 13 is missing bylines and seems to be citing four separate sources
  • Cite 14 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
  • Cite 15 is missing bylines and seems to be citing three separate sources
  • Cite 16 is missing byline
  • Cite 17 is missing bylines and seems to be citing eight separate sources
  • Cite 18 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
  • Cite 19 is missing byline
  • Cite 20 is missing byline
  • Cite 21 is missing byline
  • Cite 22 is missing byines and seems to be citing six separate sources
  • Cite 23 is missing bylines and seems to be citing two separate sources
  • Cite 24 is missing publisher and ISBN/OCLC#
  • Cite 25 is flat-out uncitable in the first place (we don't cite personal correspondence)
  • Cite 26 is useless for notability (gov't document; this includes death certificates)
  • We can't cite Find A Grave (no editorial oversight)
You need to separate out all your merged cites, find the required bibliographical information, and use {{cite news}}/{{cite book}} for each and every one of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise (sic) information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research."

I'm sorry, but this comment doesn't make sense to me - the article summarizes the information in multiple reliably cited sources - none of it is my opinion! Do I need to include names of the sources within the article rather than just in the endnotes? SisterPhraed (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SisterPhraed, addressing just this comment - can I suggest you have a look at the way some Featured Articles (best of the best) are structured, and use them as a pattern for yours? Here are two for female singers, both working around the same time as your subject: Marie Lloyd and Kathleen Ferrier. You can find tons more articles that would make a good reference for what to do with your draft at WikiProject Musicians' Featured Articles list. Wikipedia articles are set out in a fairly consistent way, so have a go at putting yours into sections as you see in the ones I've linked. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SisterPhraed (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I try to include more personal details, as in the other two articles, there are complaints - so we'll see! SisterPhraed (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SisterPhraed, the trick there is to make sure that you're citing a reliable source for everything you add. Remember to find sources first, and only add information to your draft if you have it in your sources!
Actually looking at your draft again - it's not a draft, it's been published! Congratulations! You've successfully completed one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, take a moment to be proud of yourself :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your advice and comments! SisterPhraed (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Majeed-ul-Hassan

[edit]

which reliable source or references you accepted for verification of article? Are you accepting youtube channels or dramas on youtube for references and interviews on it? 

Majeed-ul-Hassan (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Majeed-ul-Hassan: We can only use YouTube as a source if (1) the video is produced by an agency we consider to have editorial oversight (such as al-Jazeera) and (2) that video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. We also have far stricter and MANDATORY sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons, and this includes autobiographies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Maham28

[edit]

I wrote a draft and would love the insight on what makes these references unreliable? Maham28 (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

www.giftmarket.com.sg is a primary source so not independent, interviews with and content written by the owners is also not independent, so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 27 July 2024 review of submission by SisterPhraed

[edit]

Please delete this draft article - thanks! SisterPhraed (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that yourself by tagging it with {{db-g7}} at the top. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 27 July 2024 review of submission by Artlin2

[edit]

A page titled above was written and published on Wikipedia in June 2022 where it was featured along with photos.

Two years later, it’s in a draft. Can a reliable source such as esteemed Wikipedia writers re-publish it. Artlin2 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Chitra Ramanathan
Previously on AFCHD: [1]
@Artlin2, I see submitting this draft was one of the first things you did as a Wikipedia editor. Have you worked on this draft before? If not, how did you find it?
Could you also please tell us how you know Chitra Ramanathan? You have been asked this before but did not answer. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear StartGrammer,
In response, Chitra Ramanathan is publicly noticed for over 25 years into the present period by varied sources through features on different art related websites, articles and reviews. Earlier this year (January 2024) the artist was recognized with the International Tagore Award.
Secondly, the review was submitted upon direction by Wikipedia editor Geoffrey Lane.
However, should the references including that are featured in the Reference section on Wikipedia/the draft still not meet criteria, please delete the article. Thanks again. Artlin2 (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artlin2: This does not answer the question. Your draft will not be accepted until you disclose how you know the subject. C F A 💬 00:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding that upon rereading the previous discussion, it seems to me that Artlin2 has not edited the draft under their current username and in fact does not intend to edit the draft (based on '...[s]o my question who would be identifying individual subjects for the written, as I will not be writing or editing.'). If that is a misinterpretation, I would be very happy to be corrected. Otherwise, we may be wasting our time trying to help an editor who has no intention of accepting advice. I hope this is not the case. StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if this account was a sock of Amansharma111 (a large WP:UPE farm that has been involved with this draft). Vertacool and Asmbg3 are probably also involved in this. I'll hold off on filing an SPI for now in case they have any convincing evidence to suggest otherwise. C F A 💬 01:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

[edit]

08:38, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Bdbotaimtopro

[edit]

Please add now this article authentic and real Bdbotaimtopro (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdbotaimtopro: can you please stop messing with this and the other similar draft. You're a blocked user, you are not allowed to edit at all. And these drafts have been rejected as non-notable. I've also issued you a final warning for removing AfC tags, but you keep doing it regardless. Expect to blocked sooner or later (hopefully sooner). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Tizzythewhale

[edit]

I this article is not approved, as it contains all sources Tizzythewhale (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizzythewhale that isn't a question, but the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. His bio on platforms where he teaches don't establish notability, and the draft is promotional in tone. Also, the draft contains 2 images you uploaded as own work; what is your relationship with him? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Pemba.mpimaji

[edit]

I added another source (governmental training handout for local officers) and the draft refers now to SIX published sources that are: 

   in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
   reliable
   secondary
   independent of the subject

The topic has thus been dealt with in as much detail as possible. I cannot grasp why this entry is constantly being denied. It has more substance than a lot of other wikipedia articles. Pemba.mpimaji (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pemba.mpimaji: Under no circumstances are government-created sources secondary. If they did not originate from the government themselves, then they were compiled by them from information provided by the subject. We can't use ResearchGate (no editorial oversight); cite the original paper and not the mirror of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pemba.mpimaji, the draft was rejected a week ago - that means you cannot submit it again, as the reviewers think it's clear that the topic is not notable by Wikipedia standards. In case you want to try to write a draft on another topic, I'll quickly analyse your sources. I strongly recommend you spend more time working on other articles before beginning another draft, though.
Source 1 and 3 are government documents; they are not secondary, and not independent of the subject.
Sources 2 and 6 are PhD theses; these should only be used with caution as they are often primary sources and we don't know how reliable they are. ResearchGate, as Jeske says, cannot be used at all; 6 mentions gibana only in passing, and so is not significant coverage.
Source 4 is a World Bank report and does not discuss gibana in any meaningful way, so it is not significant coverage.
Source 5 is one I cannot access, but even if it's a usable source it is not enough by itself.
I hope this helps you in future source finding, and in the meantime I wish you happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Birth65

[edit]

Hi- I am new to Wiki. My first submission was denied and sent back for editing. I was wondering how to see what changes/edits need to be made. I cannot locate the suggested edits. 

Birth65 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 This appears to be an unusual decline. There is no rationale given. I will look further at this 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assistance. It is greatly appreciated. Birth65 (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 I have reverted the decline as vandalism, and warned the editor as to their behaviour, I'm sorry this has happened to you, it is an abnormal experience. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel competent to review this effectively. My annoyance at the vandalism has affected my clear-sightedness on this draft. Perhaps someone else will look at it "early" as a compensation to Birth65 for their experience. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I greatly appreciate your support. That was very kind and supportive of you. May I ask, should I return to the edit page and click "submit" again? I apologize for the inconvenience. Birth65 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 I reverted it to the "already submitted state" so it has returned to where it should be. Even after submission you are able and allowed to continue to improve it wherever you can.
Thank you for your comments. I feel I was neither kind nor supportive, but simply acted as I hope and expect any editor here to do on behalf of any other editor. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent That is good to know. And leaves me appreciative of the excellent standards Editors hold themselves to on this platform. Birth65 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birth65 we are fallible because we are human, but we try very hard to get it right. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 28 July 2024 review of submission by Zelnikov

[edit]

In accordance to the referee request I corrected and added very reliable references to the sources, however the article was rejected anyway. I don't see what is wrong now. Zelnikov (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zelnikov: what is wrong now is that there are seven sections in this draft, and only one of them ('Research') is referenced. This would be problematic in any article, but is totally unacceptable in one on a living person (WP:BLP). Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

[edit]

09:10, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Futbalove.talenty

[edit]

I dont know how to publish this Wikipedia page Futbalove.talenty (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected. It is competely unsourced, and no indication of notability has been given. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, it's highly recommended that new users first learn about the process by reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial. You will also increase your chances of success by first spending much time (months if not years) editing existing articles, to learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Vivekcreator96

[edit]

This is a film information page, otherwise suggest the edits Vivekcreator96 (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "film information pages" here. We have articles about films that meet our definition of a notable film. Your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a film page, not destroying wikipedia in any way Vivekcreator96 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. No one has said you are "destroying Wikipedia". The film simply does not meet the criteria for inclusion. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOHARM. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


15:20, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Ckeller1

[edit]

Seeking advice on how to improve the neutral tone of this article. Seeking review of citations (which I think I improved before I resubmit.

Multiple editors have requested the article be written more neutrally, however I am unsure how to accomplish this. Ckeller1 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckeller1 I have left a comment on the draft. The remaining issues are solvable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, I will check it out! I appreciate your help! Ckeller1 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Rp.lp1

[edit]

Why was the Adial Pharmaceuticals page declined? Rp.lp1 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if all the references are either routine business announcements, or just mention Adial in passing: not one of them, from its title, appears to be an in-depth piece about the company. Without several such sources, the draft does nothing to establish that the company is notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:55, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Aasiea

[edit]

I want to add paragraphs about her life but, im not sure how to type it in the edit source area 

Aasiea (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aasiea, can I suggest trying in Visual mode? Look on the top right of the box where you can put text etc, there's a picture of a pencil. If you click that you can choose your mode. Visual might be easier for you.
You should also read the page on how to cite sources, because you will need to make sure you've cited all the information correctly before the draft can be accepted. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 29 July 2024 review of submission by HASSAN YUSUF SHEHU

[edit]

Why this page is declined? HASSAN YUSUF SHEHU (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HASSAN YUSUF SHEHU: The English-language Wikipedia has no use for content that is not in English. Try putting this on the Hausa Wikipedia instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:19, 29 July 2024 review of submission by Hwikipedianuk

[edit]

I think this should have been accepted. It would be a stub article, but it is standard these are created for Big Brother series and it can be added to over time. Hwikipedianuk (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create a stub, you should do so directly, though it would be at risk of deletion or being moved back to draft. To pass this process, you need to do as the reviewer pointed out. Even a stub needs to meet certain minimum requirements. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

[edit]

02:13, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Jgalloway035

[edit]

I do not understand how it is contrary to wikipedia. Please help 

 Jgalloway035 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jgalloway035: This looks like a short story/retelling of a myth. An article on a myth/fable that's just regurgitation of it serves no encyclopaedic focus; you need to have sources that contextualise and analyse it if there is to be an article on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Zelnikov

[edit]

I added inline citations on the reliable outside sources (not wikipedia) in all sections. However a new submission was also rejected for the reason: ... the draft needs to meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria.

In fact the academic criteria 5. "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement"

is definitely satisfied: Prof. Valeri Frolov helds a distinguished named professor appointment at the University of Alberta, (Canada) -- Killam Memorial Chair Zelnikov (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewer @SafariScribe: any comments? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, thanks for the ping. @Zelnikov, your draft may meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF but it isn't properly referenced. Those guidelines as presumably impactful meaning that the person may be notable and doesn't give full assurance of notability. We follow the general guideline. In your draft, which is also a WP:BLP, there seems to be an undue weight if the "early life and education", one of the most vital part of this article type is not sourced. The question is, where did you get those information? The sources you provided also were static website url example [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. For me I see that as gaming the source, when you will cite only the url address. It might have been an error somewhere, and that, you should correct. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:22, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Lisha2037

[edit]

Hello. Can I have a different editor? The reasons for not accepting my request aren’t very constructive or prudent. I have referenced everything properly. If a paragraph seems largely unsourced it’s because the following paragraphs are from the same source and have the reference at the end of it. Lisha2037 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisha2037: We would need out-of-universe sources (anything GRRM writes would be a primary source as she originates from his works) that discuss the character, their reception, and their cultural impact in order to even consider having an article on them. Mere reports on who her actor is isn't enough to justify an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that explains this better. However, I based how this article is written on how other GOT characters were written and all of them, yes all of them, have primary references in their articles. Where should I put secondary sources?? Lisha2037 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: Ideally in a section discussing how the character was received by critics (both literary and television) and their overall cultural impact, as that is what we're looking for as far as articles on characters go. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I added secondary sources to various sections including the storyline parts. Can you lease review this and let me know what you think. I would prefer a different editor than the last one. Lisha2037 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisha2037: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will get feedback when a reviewer comes along to assess it. (That reviewer may be a different one, or it may be the same as before.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:05, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Minhuaty

[edit]

Hi major changes has been made into the articles. If there is anything needed to be revised, please do indicate. I will be actively monitoring and editing until it is publish. Minhuaty (talk) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which means it will not be considered further. If you have made fundamental changes to the draft that address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:22, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Fabrixio77

[edit]

Hi, I would like support in getting the page approved Fabrixio77 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrixio77: could you please be more specific, what support do you need? Please study the decline notice and comments carefully, they (incl. the links they contain) explain what you need to work on. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Dsfreeform

[edit]

Hello, I understand the submission was declined due to the lack of significant sources. I provided coverage by publications, radio stations, record labels, and AllMusic. Hager is the only active member of the band Devo without a Wikipedia page, just looking to close the gap with a simple page. Is there anything else I can do with the references provided? Thanks for your help. Dsfreeform (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dsfreeform We don't have "simple pages" that merely document existence. Wikipedia has articles about topics that meet the relevant criteria, in this case, WP:MUSICBIO. His notability seems to be tied to his work with the band- he would only merit a standalone article if he has a significant solo career as a musician, or if he meets the broader notable person definition. You don't seem to provide sources that demostrate either. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To provide an example, Paul McCartney merits an article not because he was a member of The Beatles, but because he had a significant solo career outside of his work with The Beatles. 331dot (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I added a few more references that speak to his credits as a producer and engineer, which is more significant than his career as a solo musician. Dsfreeform (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:13, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Nycamylee

[edit]

I have inserted newspaper articles and the Seoul Metropolican Government's official website's citations and thought they are quite trustworthy and reliable sources that can be easy to be verified. I have inserted newspaper articles and government published articles.

But I am still getting 'I need to provide more reliable sources' I have no idea what to, or how to add more reliable sources than adequate Newspaper articles and government issued articles. Please help. Please show some examples of how I should insert more to meet the requirements rather thatn just keep saying "you need to provide more reliable sources". Please Nycamylee (talk) 15:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nycamylee It's not necessarily that you need more sources, you need better sources; independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this man and show what makes him a notable person. That he is descended from the former Korean royal family might make him notable, if independent sources significantly write about this point. He also seems to have a business career, but the only sources you provided merely document his activities, not what makes him important/influential as a businessman. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycamylee: also, there is a lot of unreferenced information, with several paragraphs without a single citation. Articles on living people require comprehensive citations throughout; see WP:BLP. It may not therefore be a case of adding more sources, but citing the existing sources (assuming that's where all this information came from) more frequently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Aimzieslol

[edit]

Howdy, this is the submission rejection:

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.

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

I provided all the sources I could find *and* gave as much context as I could.

Is there a better way to do this? Should I ... write more? What I also don't understand is beyond the web page and Spotify there aren't any other sources.

Advice/help appreciated. Aimzieslol (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aimzieslol: all this short draft tells us is that such a podcast exists. WHat makes it notable enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia? What have third party sources said about it, and its significance, impact, etc.? In short, why should we take note? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't the "whys" of its existence pre-loaded with bias, though? What I'd like to do is present factual information of what it is, what it's doing, topics talked about, etc.
IMO, "why" it exists would mean I have to put some sort of judgment on it instead of letting it speak for itself.
As a n00b, I could be wrong ... Aimzieslol (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aimzieslol You have discovered the "Hurdle of Notability" which any topic must leap in order to be considered for an article here. That something exists does not mean it is notable. That something is interesting does not mean it is notable. I exist and I believe I am interesting, but no article on me will ever exist becaise I do not pass our notability criteria.
So it is with your topic. It exists and is (probably) interesting. What has not yet happened is notability. To achieve that it must in and of itself, attract the attention of others independent of the topic who will write significant coverage about it in multiple reliable sources which are independent of the topic. At that point there is a string probability that it will achieve an article here.
No-one has asked why it exists. That have asked you to prove that it is notable in a Wikipedia sense. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TY, "hurdle of notability" makes more sense than, "insufficient context" or "adequately supported." I did read through "Notability" article but it didn't click for some reason. Thanks, everyone. Aimzieslol (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aimzieslol: granted, it could have been declined explicitly for notability. The review tool only allows for two decline reasons, and when there are more than two valid ones, it's not always easy to choose. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:18, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Gabriel601

[edit]

Aside being among the housemates in a Notable TV reality show which is Big Brother Naija season 8. From the references on google about her, does she meets WP:GNG on that? Gabriel (……?) 17:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft on Kim Oprah was deleted back in April, but as a rule you need to prove that a reality-show contestant is notable outside of the context of the reality show as they are designed specifically to flanderise and aggravate their contestants in the name of conflict and ratings. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but as a rule you need to prove that a reality-show contestant is notable outside of the context of the reality show as they are designed specifically to flanderise and aggravate their contestants in the name of conflict and ratings. I know about that and I have done some Google research but not sure if I should go ahead creating. It shouldn't look like a waste of time, reason I needed another editor to check on some google search to see if the Draft is worth creating.--Gabriel (……?) 18:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 If you already think it may be a waste of time, please trust your instinct. There is more than enough other stuff to do here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You right. Kudos to you. Gabriel (……?) 19:02, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 30 July 2024 review of submission by 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B

[edit]

why is the Wikipedia page down is it because it has the word nsfw or because my sorce is the only place to get information about him 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's rejected and will not be considered further because you have zero usable sources; we cannot cite website homepages as they have no context for the claim(s) they're being cited for. We also wouldn't cite anything the subject has any direct control over anyway, including their own website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

isn't wikipeda a online encyclopdia its for information not for story's that's all info we have on him my team stalked him for Weekes paparazzi stuff 2001:5B0:51DC:E788:E3B8:4102:A52C:F99B (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop power-posting sections and edit in the section already about your draft. We require sources, full-stop. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your team stalked him for Weeks? That's illegal, and original research. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:37, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Grimerera

[edit]

I would like to change the title of this article to merely Ella The Ungovernable. Is it possible to change the subject line of a draft? Grimerera (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grimerera: Draft titles are, at best, provisional. When and if it is accepted the reviewer will move it to an appropriate title. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 30 July 2024 review of submission by Sadams-333

[edit]

I am trying to understand which sources are the issue with my article. There are a number of reliable, secondary sources used, but are you referring to the "Features" section where the sources link to the Celiac.com website?

Reasons given for rejection: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Sadams-333 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadams-333: Anything hosted on Celiac.com is useless for notability (connexion to subject), as the implication is that it was written for the website. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is very helpful, thank you. Would this also include links to webarchive shots of Celiac.com that, for example, demonstrate where the name change of our website happened in 1997, which is in the "History" area of our article? Sadams-333 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadams-333: Yes. You would need news articles to verify the name change. Also, "our"? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've disclosed my relationship with the site. Sadams-333 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made your recommended changes and removed all self referring sources. Do you see any issues with existing sources? I've had to use the webarchive for some of them. Sadams-333 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I do see issues (going to archive.com isn't one of them: that's perfectly fine, and sources don't even have to be online).
I haven't looked at all of them, but I've yet to find one that is not either written or published by celiac.com (not independent), based on an interview with Adams (not independent), or contains just a passing mention of celiac.com (no significant coverage). The closest to it would be the Tufts site, but that has only three paragraphs on celiac.com, and is just a review of what you can see in the website.
I don't see any pieces where somebody wholly unconnected with celiac.com has been sufficiently interested in the site to write an extended piece about it - not just what it looks like, but who created it, why, how, why it is important. Any article about celiac.com should be based at least 90% on sources like that.
As a presentation issue, please read about named references to avoid repeating the same source; but since the one you have repeated most often is a primary source it is of limited value and no value at all for establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

[edit]

07:46, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Wolfpack1999

[edit]

need advice on how to improve on the article Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfpack1999: This isn't an article, it's a self-help essay. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read What Wikipedia is not, especially the section "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". ColinFine (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:54, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Wolfpack1999

[edit]

Need to add a motivation , self-improvement/help company. what are the things to watch for? Wolfpack1999 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfpack1999, promotional editing of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia, and the neutral point of view is a mandatory core content policy. WP:NCORP is the stringent guideline governing articles about businesses and companies. Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 31 July 2024 review of submission by CoTangent

[edit]

I translated a German wikipedia article about a mathematical subject ( de: Pro-Lie-Gruppe) into English and wanted to submit it to the English Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pro-Lie_Group

Unfortunately, the submission was declined becauce 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.

My problem is that I think the article is supported enough by reliable sources (I know that is not a good argument, but it was enough for the German wikipedia). Furthermore, it is not a very controversial topic and all the definitions are pretty standard. Does anyone know how I should go on? All the best, and thanks for your help! CoTangent (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoTangent: I think this was correctly declined. Your draft cites only two sources, one of which appears to be a WordPress blog of some sort. Those sources are cited against two relatively minor statements in the 'Examples', with the vast majority of the draft unreferenced. We do need to know where the information comes from, so that it can be verified.
Whether an article on this subject and with these references exists in the German-language Wikipedia is their business, and has no bearing on its acceptability here, as each language version is completely separate with their own rules and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoTangent Please understand that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English version tends to be stricter than others. It is up to the translator to ensure that the article they are translating for another Wikipedia meets the requirements of that Wikipedia.
You have only two sources; to pass this process, most reviewers generally look for at least three independent reliable sources that discuss the topic and its importance. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation! CoTangent (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12

[edit]

Hi there, I have updated the article as suggested. I've changed the format to academic bio and added in appropriate references. I am wondering if this is enough before I submit it again? Appreciate any help or suggestions, thank you. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemhwiki12: I have no concerns about notability, but there are still unreferenced statements which need to be supported. Even something relatively innocuous like "Kenardy completed a Bachelor of Science (Honours) in 1981 and Ph.D. in Psychiatry in 1989 from the University of Queensland" might cause someone to raise an eyebrow and think how do we know that's true... and the reader should never have the need to ask such a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Rugantino73

[edit]

Good morning, despite the fact that the page complies with all the rules of Wikipedia, is not self-referential, and has encyclopedic value, I am unable to get it published. I have included all the required sources to enhance the content, making this page better than many others that are already present and published on Wikipedia. I find your attitude excessively hostile towards me and, above all, discriminatory. I urge you to publish the page without further disputes. Best regards. 

Rugantino73 (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugantino73: this draft most certainly does not comply with "all the rules of Wikipedia", it breaks quite a number of them. And you have 'referenced' it mostly with pictures and links to Amazon. As it stands, this will absolutely not be published.
As for whether this is better or worse than other articles that may exist out there, is completely irrelevant. We do not assess drafts by comparison to other articles, but instead by reference to the applicable policies and guidelines.
And before you start throwing around accusations of discrimination etc., I hope you have solid evidence to back up such allegations, as otherwise you may find yourself sanctioned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find a common line. Your colleagues informed me that links to Amazon could be added without any issues, the page has been modified according to your indications, it was simpler at first. If you want the sources and those sources are on Amazon (it is a publishing house like the others), you will have links to Amazon. I can remove everything. Try to think that you are a free encyclopedia and that there should not be companies proposing the creation of paid pages. When a new page is submitted and is rejected because it does not reflect your publishing principles, that is fine, but those principles must also apply to other similar pages that are online; this is what I consider discrimination, and I do not think I should be the one to be sanctioned. Have a good day. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to find a "common line". If Amazon is the publisher of these books, they are clearly self-published vanity titles, that confer nothing in terms of notability. If Amazon isn't the publisher, it is acting as a retailer, and we don't cite shops as sources. In any case, even if Amazon were the publisher, you don't need to add spammy links to your draft, you can simply cite the books with standard bibliographical details.
It is not discrimination that we are declining your draft, when it is clearly not ready to be published, while sub-par articles exist among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) It is simply us applying objectively our policies and guidelines regarding what is acceptable for publication.
And one final point: be aware that if you resubmit the draft without any attempt at addressing the decline reasons, it may be rejected outright without the option to resubmit, because this signals your unwillingness and/or inability to develop it further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Hold on, what is your involvement in Draft:Marco Nica? It seems you've made exactly one edit to it. Are you working with, or operating also, the user account BearThatRun? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are two working on it: Rugantino73 and BearThatRun. Rugantino73 (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of works are a decoration, like images. The important part of any article is a summary of what people unconnected with the subject have published about them in reliable sources.
The important part of your draft - the biography - is almost unreferenced, and contains non-neutral language ("his passion for"; "original"; "famous").
You have almost certainly written this draft BACKWARDS, as new editors usually do if they attempt to write a new article before learning how Wikipedia works. First find your reliable, independent, sources, with significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42). Then write a summary of what those sources say, not of what you know. If that adds up to an article, you can add a selected bibliography - preferably citing everything to independent sources, because if you can't find an independent source that talks about a work, why is that work relevant to an encyclopaedia article?
I don't know who told you that "links to Amazon could be added without any issues", but they were wrong. See WP:VENDOR for the limited circumstances in which commerce sites may be cited.
Rugantino73, and @BearThatRun: what is your relationship with Nica? If you know him (as suggested by BearThatRun's comment on the images "He gave them to me", then you should declare your conflict of interest.
Also, @BearThatRun, I have nominated both images for deletion, as you have not provided any evidence that the copyright holder has put them in the public domain. If the copyrighht holder (who is probably not Nica) has made that statement, it must be evidenced by them: see WP:donating copyright materials./ ColinFine (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright, I'm going to ask about the release of rights. Thank you! BearThatRun (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know him by email since when i was creating the page i needed images. Other than the books/shows i saw. BearThatRun (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Río de las Ánimas

[edit]

I'm not sure why the citations are not worthy. There are several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums. Any advice? Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Río de las Ánimas: what do you mean by "several sources, including books, news articles, and websites such as local museums"? This draft has three citations, of two sources, and both sources appear to be newspapers. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I didn't publish the changes. I've added a website for the Animas Museum. And I have a very old book, self-published by the old owners of the hot springs: https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/trimble-hot-springs_leith-lende-bear/52117571/. Thanks for any advice and help. I'm a fan of Colorado hot springs and noticed the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hot_springs_in_Colorado has links to several hot springs that don't have pages or have really outdated info, like Trimble. Thanks again. Río de las Ánimas (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Monniejaym

[edit]

I have now submitted this twice and read everything about reliable sources. Can someone give more detailed feedback as to what is not reliable? Monniejaym (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent sources, YouTube is not a reliable source and Soundcloud is a primary source. Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 31 July 2024 review of submission by JFBB12345

[edit]

Hello, I want to make sure that the five selected papers cited for this subject are referenced in the correct academic format. I have given them all numbered references, as there must not be any links in the article outside of Wikipedia cross-reference links. Please can you advise whether 'Authors: Bailey, J. et al ' should appear in the actual numbered reference (and if so, what is the text code for this, as I do not seem to have put it in the correct small box when 'inserting a journal reference'... Thanks for your assistance! JFBB12345 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JFBB12345: are you asking about refs 15-19? Yes, they appear to be correctly cited using the {{cite journal}} template. That template can also accommodate author details, but that's probably not necessary in your case, given how you've listed these papers in your draft.
BTW, what is your relationship with this person? I've posted a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for confirmation that the reference citation format is acceptable, much appreciated. No conflict of interest, will reply to your comment on the appropriate page. 2A0A:EF40:C:DA01:7064:E8DF:AE10:6B95 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:23, 31 July 2024 review of submission by Dalex247

[edit]

I'm using similar references to other similar published wikipedia pages. Why is this declined? Dalex247 (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalex247: you can't really say you're using "similar references". The English-language Wikipedia has nearly 7m articles, ranging from completely unreferenced to far stronger referencing than in your draft, therefore "similar" becomes meaningless. In any case, comparing yours to other articles, aka. the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach, is not how we assess drafts. We compare them to what is required by the applicable policies and guidelines.
The sources in this draft are mostly primary, and the couple of secondary ones provide only passing mentions. One source is an interview, published in a blog. None of these contribute towards notability per the general WP:GNG guideline for notability. (Hockey has no special guideline, hence why GNG applies. Cricket does have one, and having played internationally could make a player notable, but only for countries with test status, which Wales isn't.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Ok, fair enough... the question was vague, but thanks for the feedback regardless. Now I've got you, I've added a more detailed question on the talk page of the draft but will summarise here. Any help would be much appreciated.
I have updated my Draft to include more references from reliable sources and have taken inspiration from similar pages that have been accepted, notably Phoebe Richards - Wikipedia and Sarah Jones (field hockey) - Wikipedia (Eloise Laity - Wikipedia and Rose Thomas (field hockey) - Wikipedia) who played alongside Joanne Westwood. Firstly, I mistakenly removed the AfD template as the declined template from my first draft was still showing. Will this template be updated after review or should I change it to the original draft template again so its picked up again?
Secondly, and this may come up when its reviewed, but any advice as to how I can improve this draft? I'm not sure what I'm doing differently to the pages for other Welsh field hockey players with similar careers.
Following your feedback, finding secondary references that are more than passing mentions from reputable sources would be the way to go? Can this include video interviews? and appreciate the "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS approach" is not how drafts are assessed but is there any inspiration I can take from the pages I mentioned above? as they all played together, they will likely have similar references available. Dalex247 (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do not establish notability. They can be used for other purposes, but not that.
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dalex247: the GNG guideline, which is what you need to be working towards, requires multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent (of each other, and of the subject), and provide significant coverage directly of the subject.
As 331dot notes, interviews may have some limited use in verifying non-contentious information, but they are not independent (they are the subject talking, usually about themselves), and not necessarily reliable either (since no fact-checking or editorial oversight is applied), and cannot therefore be used to establish notability.
I haven't looked at the other articles you mention, but just to say that not every article that exists has been 'accepted', nor would they necessarily be acceptable. Some pre-date the AfC review process. Some were created when referencing and notability requirements were more relaxed than they are today. Some were published by authors who have user permissions allowing them to bypass article reviews. And due to the large number of articles in the 'pedia, these issues simply haven't been picked up yet.
Finally, yes, I saw that you had removed the earlier review template, and I replaced it. The templates need to stay there until the draft is accepted, as they form an audit trail of the review process. They will just continue to pile up, until they are all automatically removed upon acceptance. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot@DoubleGrazing Thank you both thats really helpful. I'll find a few more references Dalex247 (talk) 09:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 1

[edit]

02:24, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Ss6928

[edit]

Page was declined and needs to be rewritten but I need more specific advice for why they believe it reads like an advertisement. I thought I provided third party sources. Ss6928 (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ss6928 I fixed your link(you need the "Draft:" portion). Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The draft reads much like a resume, it documents his work and accomplishments, but does not describe what independent reliable sources say makes him a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing my link! And for your advice. Let me try again. Ss6928 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Sonatondash920

[edit]

Please approve mu article page... Sonatondash920 (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatondash920 Fixed your link(you need the "Draft:" portion) but your draft was thorougly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves like social media is, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Tsurielsdomi

[edit]

Hi,

I created a profile for Tsuriel Sdomi with many citations and references, but it was not accepted. He is a very important person in his city and country.

What can I do to get it accepted?

Thank you. Tsurielsdomi (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsurielsdomi: have you read the decline notice? It gives the reasons why I declined this, which therefore are the things you need to work on.
Similarly, have you read any of the messages posted on your talk page User talk:Tsurielsdomi, starting with why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, and why copying content from other sources is not allowed? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Editorialalex

[edit]

Hello, I have made some changes to this article with the help of Nnev66‬, and I would like to get a second opinion before I submit it for review a second time. Does the article as it stands now contain enough in-depth, reliable, independent secondary sources? Editorialalex (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Editorialalex, we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. You will get a full assessment of your draft when you submit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thank you. Editorialalex (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Xeimen129

[edit]

My wikipedia article about age of history games keeps getting declined only because i dont have enough primary review sources and i cant find any because no one has made a serious review of the game so i resort to using steam reviews please help. IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeimen129: you have resubmitted this draft for another review, and will get an assessment sooner or later. In the meantime, did you have a question you wanted to ask?
If there aren't sufficient appropriate sources to establish notability, then that most likely means that the subject simply isn't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used mutable steam reviews on one statement to try to state the majority opinion of the bugs and criticisms in the game IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steam reviews are utterly unusable (no editorial oversight), just like any other sort of user review. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:30, 1 August 2024 review of submission by RebeccaM226

[edit]

Hi, Regarding reliable sources for a musician, which are the sites are considered as reliable sources for music release ? Because the reviewer said that discogs.com neither imdb are accepted. The proof of work of Henri Scars Struck is on many of these places. Otherwise the only thing left is screen capture the records ? RebeccaM226 (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaM226: user-generated sources are not regarded as reliable. This includes IMDB, Discogs, Vimeo and YouTube (depending on the channel/publisher), and indeed Wikipedia itself. Nearly half of your draft's citations are to such sources.
You also have a lot of content that isn't supported by any sources, which is a problem in itself, especially in articles on living people (WP:BLP).
If you cannot find reliable sources to support the information, then it must be removed.
Having said all that, I will slightly qualify this by saying that the reverse of the old adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that if you're making completely non-contentious (and purely factual) statements, such as the title and year of release of an album, you may get away with supporting them with the likes of Discogs. But that's only in very limited cases, and otherwise your referencing needs to be pretty much faultless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Greghenderson2006

[edit]

User SafariScribe has declined my article saying "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, he does not say what sources are not reliable. The history says: "Submission is improperly sourced (AFCH)" I have no idea what to change or do. I've sent SafariScribe a message but there has been no reply. It is very frustrating to have an article rejected for a vague reason. Do you agree? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and some editors like occasionally to do other things in their life. Given that SafariScribe declined this less than 24 hrs ago, maybe give them a bit more time to respond? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline, after all.
And yes, I get how it may be frustrating that we have to use templates when processing drafts, but there's no way around that, really. With thousands of pending drafts in the system, things would grind to a halt completely if we had to write each decline reason individually. But I get your point that it's difficult to improve your referencing if you're not sure which bit of it requires improvement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006 Let's look at some of your sources, but not in huge quantity or detail. I'll take the first few:
I'll stop after the first four. What I see is a slew of references that do not verify notability. This starts to explain "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." and shows thaty tyhe calibre of referencing you are using is illustrative rather that for verification of notabilityy. Granted, you may have improved on this lower down the list.
Let me remind you as many of us have explained to you more than once:
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
What you need to do is to go down 100% of your references and compare them with the indented paragraph. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, thanks for your comments! Below is my reply to your comments:
The reason for this list of collections is to show notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, Josselyn has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
Three of the Secondary reliable sources include:
  • Jennie V. Cannon. "Lewis Josselyn (1883-1964)" (PDF). Traditional Fine Arts Organization: Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists. p. 460. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  • Hiller, Peter (April 20, 2021). The Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West. Gibbs Smith. pp. viii, xi, 144, 186, 193–196, 203, 294, 305. ISBN 978-0-692-05342-3. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
  • "Back to the Drawing Board with Artist Jo Mora" (PDF). Monterey History and Art Association. LII (3). Monterey, California. 2003. Retrieved 2023-11-13..
I appreciate your help and will review my references again. I would be happy to remove any uncessary sources to get this to pass the review process. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006 The picture collections show that the subject is a photographer. They might be useful to demonstrate that fact because it is not susceptible to challenge, but they cannot be said to demonstrate not verify notability. I would minimise the use of those, using the fewest and best.
Why?
Because you need to major on what is recorded as being said by others in multiple reliable sources independent of him and about him.
What I think you have done is started with what you wish to say and struggles to make references fit. This phenomenon is called WP:BACKWARDS, is an easy trap to fall into and it to be avoided.
Instead, look at references and what they say. Marshall what they say into a storyboard, and, using your own words entirely, craft the draft from the storyboard. The references then fall into place. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that was deleted by community consensus after an extensive AfD discussion and a good example of WP:AMOUNT and in my opinion, it's a recreation of an article deleted by consensus. Graywalls (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls It is clear that this draft, as written and referenced, cannot pass. I have examined further references though not all and they are useless in verifying notability. A reference search by @Greghenderson2006, and a total rewrite based only of refs that stand up to scrutiny might prove notability and might pass. This draft has no future, and is in danger of becoming a time sink. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:32, 1 August 2024 review of submission by Harrytone

[edit]

My AFC was rejected for the reason "submission is improperly sourced". Without specific guidance I don't know how to fix this, as I feel it meets the standards as the basis for an article to be expanded on, and that the sources provided are reliable for the information given. Harrytone (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrytone: As a fair warning, this draft falls into a contentious topic (Eastern Europe and the Balkans). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afsheen_(musician)

[edit]

Hi! We had a discussion with an editor about the category to use for this individual. Thinking either it should be the general notability, or #musician. I later found he was nominated for latin grammy so it could meet WP:NMUSICIAN #8. Can you take a look? The individual is in many charts, made music for many big figures, but mostly behind the scenes, so was hard to find any coverage. J2009j (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2009j: NMUSICIAN refers to musicians (individual or ensemble), whereas you describe this person as "music producer, songwriter, and DJ". I also don't know if that Latin Grammy nomination satisfies #8. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 8 - Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions. J2009j (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added category 8 here, for people to read. I believe Latin Grammy and Grammy are two main grammy awards there are. The songs he producer received Grammys, and have been nominated for Grammys- but I assume that would be a different thing.
    Or perhaps, we can go with the general notability in this case? J2009j (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that Latin Grammy != Grammy. And for clarity, I'm not saying this doesn't satisfy #8; only that I don't know if it does. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. So that is why I am asking here. This is what I found on wikipedia.
    The concept of a separate Grammy Awards for Latin music began in 1989. According to organizers, the Latin Grammy Awards was established as the Latin music universe was deemed too large to fit on the Grammy Awards. The Latin Recording Academy defines Latin music as music in Spanish or Portuguese.Latin Grammy Awards#:~:text=The concept of a separate,music in Spanish or Portuguese. J2009j (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also adding criteria #2 with his song on the Billboard Chart ( #1 on Billboard K-Pop Hot 100). https://www.festground.com/articles/afsheen-min-jiryuh/534 J2009j (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe Can you take a look? You were among those who declined it. J2009j (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 1 August 2024 review of submission by GreenAppleClimber

[edit]

Hello, I am having trouble getting this draft published. It has been rewritten and resourced multiple times. I believe it to be well sourced, from independent parties, and the firm itself is notable and of similar importance to many current live articles - but I understand that this is not agreed upon.

Is there someone I can submit this draft to get active help from the community rather than yes or no approvals. Thank you very much for your time. GreenAppleClimber (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenAppleClimber: this software being published by a notable developer doesn't mean anything, as notability is not inherited by association. And as for comparing this to other articles that may be out there (the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), this isn't how drafts are assessed; we evaluate them with reference to the relevant policies and guidelines.
You can ask questions about the AfC review process right here at the help desk, or general editing questions at the Teahouse or the Help desk. You can of course also ask directly the individual reviewers who declined this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thanks for the clarification on this! I appreciate your attention to detail and polite response. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a great reference, thanks for clearing that up. The reason the article was declined was:
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."
I guess I would ask @SafariScribe, could you point out a few sources and the problems they possess? I'm trying my best to find independent sources, and believe the ones I've provided to have more than mere passing mention, third-party separation, and verifiable content. (I don't expect you to list all of them, and want to be considerate of your time- but I'm struggling to find the reason for rejection). I could use some help with this article. Thanks everyone! GreenAppleClimber (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1238054358"