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 2[edit]

07:34, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Nurebz001[edit]

We faced issues with two paid editors due to lack of awareness of all policies. Our first editor's work got drafted when it was discovered he was paid. The second editor faced the same issue when GSS assumed it was the same person. Although we fired the first editor and hired a second person. Now, we have submitted our own page, but GSS drafted it again. We are trying to comply with all policies and have disclosed our COI. I believe GSS is being unreasonable, and may be thinking that I am one of the previous editors. I am a direct employee of RSP Architects and can verify my identity with a company email. Can someone help resolve this situation? The page was live for a month without issues. All I am asking is to submit the page to AFC. Here is the page link Draft:RSP Architects Planners & Engineers Nurebz001 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like it was written by the marketing department to promote every thing the company has ever done, that is not how articles are written here. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... I'm confused. If I understand this correctly, you, as an employee of the company you're writing about, paid 2 editors, both of whom are blocked now, to promote your company, before you fired both of them and decided to do it yourself? Wikipedia is not for companies to tell the world about themselves, and the draft will almost certainly be declined again if resubmitted. Regardless, you need to disclose your paid editing status now by following the directions on the message I left on your talk page, or you may be blocked like the 2 other editors. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Turini2[edit]

I've posted three times on the talk page of the draft article that it is too soon for the article, and that fundamental errors and mistakes remain in their draft. Another editor (Joeyconnick) reverted previous edits for being unsourced. The editor continues to submit for AFC regardless! Can someone decline this draft, and encourage some concrete steps on how the editor can improve (i.e. talk to people rather than ignoring talk page comments!)? Turini2 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turini2: not sure what good declining will do, if the author (and it probably is the author, editing as IPs after they were blocked – maybe that's something that could be looked into?) is insistent; they can just resubmit again. Only a rejection would put an end to that, but I'm not sure that's justified. That said, I'm happy to decline this on the basis of notability, if you think that would help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - maybe directing them to the talk page, or seeking a mentor? Turini2 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Arahi991[edit]

Dear Moderator Put in more official sources I will add what I need Check the article and can publish Arahi991 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: for the third time (in the space of a week), this draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you must make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have appealed to me but the company still does not meet notability so the rejection stands. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Arahi991 we have little interest in 'official sources', as they do not establish notability nor are considered reliable and independent. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. In addition, to reiterate, do you have any connection with Solyankich (talk · contribs)? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arahi991: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Absolutely none of your sources are any good, with the vast majority of them being sources we couldn't cite under any circumstance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Np 7 13[edit]

Hello, I would like to please ask for more assistance on the reasoning behind the rejection on. I thought the citations were legitimate and reliable news resources and their format was auto-created by Wikipedia. I wish to improve this article therefore any additional more specific feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you very much! Np 7 13 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Np 7 13! It looks as if your first step is to disclose your conflict of interest| in relation to this topic – as far as I can see, every edit you've made in the last six years has been to promote it in one way or another. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers I am sorry, I think this is a bit unfair. I have made a few other edits that are not related to specifically this topic. I have an interest in art, culture and non profits in Greece as it is something I am more familiar with but I started researching and I noticed a gap about an issue and one edit led to another. I am new to this and have less than 100 edits which include other institutions in Greece as well so I might have fallen very deep and focused extensively into one topic maybe. I will try and research it more and amend the citations for a more accurate and reliable post. Thank you very much! Np 7 13 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Np 7 13, my previous statement was not 100% accurate (my apologies!), but seems more than fair. I may have missed something, but as far as I can see every edit you've made is connected to the Neon topic with the exception of those relating to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation or to the John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation (and for all I know those are connected too). It looks very much as if you you should make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure in relation to both the Latsis foundation/family and to the Neon organisation. I'll leave a note on your talk-page on how to do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 2 July 2024 review of submission by 212.139.32.254[edit]

hello. this from the donald team ahs been a problem. we have worked about. 5 days on this article. not for it to be deleted by a BOT POWERED BY AI. please accept. we need this for our work document . so accept it and the references might be fake. BUT that doesnt matter at all. it only matters if you Accept it.. FROM THE DONALD FOUNDATION 212.139.32.254 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, enough. I've issued you an only warning. Keep this up, and you can expect to be blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is absolute garbage and there are no bots editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troll blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

13:22, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Shmego[edit]

This article has over 21,000 bytes, 47 sources, and has enough information to be a notable and useful article. While only causing minimal damage, there is still enough information in it for it to become a standalone article. It is most likely only written as minimal damage as there is no monetary damage written down from St Vincent or St Lucia, so it is likely that there was a fair amount of damage, and the sources found in the article would agree with that. In conclusion, i believe that this article in notable, and with this much information, I'm not sure why it hasn't been published. Shmego (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reviewer cited WP:DENY but I'm not sure why. This process is (usually) voluntary. If you feel that the reviewers got it wrong(have you asked them directly about it?) you are free to move it to they encyclopedia yourself, but then you run the risk of an WP:AFD discussion being started. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: From the looks of it this draft's been edited by an LTA in the past, so it might be that an admin familiar with that LTA's behaviour is leery of accepting a draft they've targeted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not asked them. Thanks for the help, I may try to move it to the mainspace. Shmego (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Frankincense Diala[edit]

@Frankincense Diala: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will be getting a review once a reviewer happens to pick it up. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you can ask them here, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I considered reviewing it. Instead I flagged the picture on Commons as a copyright violation. That puts me right off reviewing a draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I decided to swallow my distaste for drafts embellished by copyright pictures, and no Declined this draft, with a very full rationale. You have substantial work to do. Please go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay . I actually asked for help Frankincense Diala (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala Which you received. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I lost the submission button for review to my draft. Please how do I retrieve it? Frankincense Diala (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I lost my submission button. Please how do I retrieve it? Frankincense Diala (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: you lost it, because you deleted all the earlier AfC templates (declines and comments). Please don't do that, they need to remain there until the draft is accepted (assuming it is). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored these now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you...but I am yet to see that it has been restored, as can't see it at the top of a draft I was already on before the mistake occured. Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I delete a draft? Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I can see now that it has been restored. Thank you very much Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: it's not at the top of the draft, it's at the bottom of the topmost decline notice in a draft. In this case that notice is long, which pushes the blue 'resubmit' button quite far down, but it is there.
You cannot delete a draft (or any other page), only admins can do that. However, assuming you're the only substantive contributor to a draft, you can request its deletion by placing the {{db-author}} template on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me with the submission button on this draft please.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Growth_Africa Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: you actually created that directly in the live encyclopaedia. I've moved it into the draft space, as it is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability. You can now find it (with the submit button) at Draft:Green Growth Africa. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it unreferenced, it reads like something a C-Suite guy wrote to try and attract investors. If the "Internet Publications on Green Growth Africa" are intended to be sources, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @DoubleGrazing you have been helpful. I saw your email on my draft still under improvement. Will do tye needed Frankincense Diala (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 2 July 2024 review of submission by WikiPhil012[edit]

What should I do if one of my independant sources is an pdf with no author? Should I just write the name of the university who made it? 

WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012: "an [sic] pdf with no author" is not a source that will contribute anything towards notability, so you might as well ignore that.
You should study the WP:GNG guideline, and find sources that meet it.
You also need to review WP:REFB about referencing in general.
And if you're citing offline sources, you need to provide full bibliographical details, see WP:OFFLINE for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this helped a lot. WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012 no Declined If you can find no references there is a strong probability (0.99) that the topic has not yet achieved notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Zahidhasanshuhan1[edit]

article submission has been rejected Zahidhasanshuhan1 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zahidhasanshuhan1: that's correct, and also speedily deleted. If you're writing about yourself, don't – see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Bcarpenterr[edit]

What can i do to get my article published? Bcarpenterr (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcarpenterr Dump YouTube and Discogs as references. They do not meet our criteria. Seek better references. Do not seek more, seek better.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Can't find references, proper ones? Then the subject is not yet ready for an article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Li-reg[edit]

Hello, I am writing here since I need help. I'm afraid there is a reviewer whom his actions seems not professional and I would love help with this. I am sure all can be read so i wont copy it but in cases like this, what can be done? Also, I must point out, I have expressed my wish to correct everything needed, I asked help and I am still willing&want but I do believe what this reviewer is doing is not okay and too personal. Thank you, Li-reg (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Li-reg Please do not make accusations about other editors. They say more about you than they do about anyone else. I see two reviews, neither of which is personal. This brief tirade of yours is likely to put other reviewers off reviewing lest they feel the sharp edge of your discontent. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Li-reg I have chosen to disregard the potential for your making further accusations. I have no Declined this draft with a full rationale. Wikipedia does not tolerate accusations. If you have something to complain about please use one of the formal complaint mechanisms. This is not the place to do it. Meanwhile, even when doing that, you are required to assume good faith. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Li-reg: If you think the reviewers are being "too personal" by offering you advice, then you're not going to like what I'm about to do. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of the sources I could assess are any good; none of them discuss Freidenberg beyond the surface level. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Lucas Pat[edit]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Do not submit the wrong question. Lucas Pat (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Pat Then do not submit it. Do you have a question? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 3[edit]

08:35, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Chanan12[edit]

I am seeking guidance to ensure that the draft article for Chanan Zevin meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and formatting standards before submission for review. Chanan12 (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanan12 why are you referring to yourself in third person? The draft is a promotional autobiography and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted User:Chanan12/sandbox, and will get an assessment when a reviewer picks it up.
Also noting here that Draft:Chanan Zevin was recently rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Never mind, that was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. And the draft has been put forward for speedy deletion.
Also, I've deleted your duplicate thread, you only need to ask your question once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 3 July 2024 review of submission by RoobaG[edit]

I would like to create an article about Talent Quest for India which is actively engaged in social works. Can you please assist how can I improve this article? RoobaG (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoobaG: as per the decline notice, you need to demonstrate notability according to the WP:ORG guideline, and you need to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, supported by reliable and independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga[edit]

Hello,

I was kindly requesting for advice regarding the draft article Nicholas Omonuk. Clare Nassanga (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: you need to specify what advice you want. That said, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request for assistance on how i can identify the references that have notability about the subject. Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: please don't open a new thread with every comment, just add to your previous one. In any case, you're just repeating your earlier question. Did you not read my reply? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should i restart the whole process again since it has been rejected. What is the step forward. Clare Nassanga (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clare Nassanga: no, rejection means the end of the road. If evidence of notability comes to light later which wasn't considered as part of these reviews, you may be able to appeal the rejection by approaching the rejecting reviewer directly, but that evidence does need to be substantially stronger than what is there now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Simon Tuliameni[edit]

What more can i do if my article is rejected? Simon Tuliameni (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Tuliameni: nothing, that's it, the end of the road. You may want to try one of the many blogging or social media platforms out there instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
add some refrence and reliable source to your article. Kunalmasson (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Kunalmasson's reply is not very helpful. Since your draft has been rejected, not just declined, merely adding sources will not do. You would need to apply to the rejecting reviewer, explaining just what material you have found which will establish that your subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Kunalmasson[edit]

Subject: Request for Analysis and Improvement Suggestions for Wikipedia Draft on Shri Dharm Paul

Dear Wikipedia Help Team,

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Massson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.


Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson 

Kunalmasson (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunalmasson: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, so it will be assessed when a reviewer comes along to take a look.
Sources don't have to be online, as long as they are of sufficient quality in terms of reliability etc. If citing offline sources, you need to provide complete bibliographical information so that the source can be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
Sources also don't have to be in English, just so you're aware. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 3 July 2024 review of submission by DerekMuttley[edit]

Difficulty understanding the 'Notability Guideline' in reference to this draft page.

I'm returning to this draft, and hope to resolve any queries this time around. Help me to understand why there should be an entry for, say LJ Ross, a contemporary fiction writer, yet this page dealing with the eponymous 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' is being refused. The work is referenced from within Wikipedia, from pages referring to the different authors involved. Several existing pages all point to 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' as being the medium for their work. The publication remained in print for over a hundred (100 years) from 1834 to 1963, and was published by a number of organisations, including the publishing arm of Sir Walter Scott. It differs from the discussion of the originator, Wilson, in that it incorporated work by other authors, and includes material of verifiable veracity, disguised within the 'fictional' overall guideline.

My difficulty seems to be that by the time of the digital age, it was so pervasive that it was/is no longer talked about, though copies are to be found in public libraries and repositories across the UK.

I appreciate that some of the discussion could be on the page related to Wilson, but that would avoid, or duplicate, material on the other author's pages.


I mentioned a contemporary author above, the page is a list of her published work, and referenced to contemporary reviews. Does this cloud of puffery indicate 'notability?' A phenomenon commencing in 1834 predates there being such material that can form 'references' of this type. References to the recently published Autobiography, and recent republications have been given. The 'peak' of discussion about the publication I would guess to be in the late 1830's.

How do I square this circle to the satisfaction of the 'bot' reviewing the submission?

Thanks, 

DerekMuttley (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there are no "bots" involved in reviews, we are ALL human beings. Theroadislong (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley: if you're calling me a 'bot', then I assume I shouldn't bother even trying to answer this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as above - So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things.
I've been involved in making 'real' automated responses since back in the last century, so I know how not intelligent the current fashion for planet eating algorithms are.
But then, if you were a bot, that's just the kind of thing you'd say.
Let's not go there. I'm merely a grasshopper, seeking for answers from the Masters.. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley: okay, well, I shall leave it for you to work out whether or not I am a bot, and will meanwhile try to explain why I declined this draft.
If I've interpreted the sources correctly, all but two of them are referencing the book itself, and the subject cannot obviously make itself notable. The other two sources, nos. 4 and 8, seem to reference other books, but of these, I can't find information on the former (I tried a few ways of searching for the ISBN, but they all returned errors), and whatever the latter is, it alone isn't enough to establish notability, especially as it appears to be somewhat close to the subject.
Notability for books is established either by sources that satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or by citing reliable evidence that show the book meeting one or more of the five criteria enumerated in the WP:BOOKCRIT section of the special WP:NBOOK guideline. (My hunch, FWIW, is that this latter guideline, NBOOK, is your better bet of the two, given what you say about the book being old, and all that.) But absent sufficient sources or other evidence to satisfying either guideline, I had no option but to decline the draft.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for LJ Ross: that article has 29 citations, many of which appear (on a quick look) to be both reliable sources and wholly independent of Ross. Also see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Kunalmasson[edit]

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Masson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson Kunalmasson (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunalmasson: you posted this same question not even 20 minutes ago. Please read my reply to that, rather than posting the same thing again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Regeneisen[edit]

Hello,

I have attempted to create a Wikipedia article twice, but unfortunately, it has been declined both times. This is my first experience with creating an article, and I am making every effort to comply with Wikipedia's standards.

Before I proceed with editing my article again, I would greatly appreciate any guidance or advice on how to improve it so that it meets the necessary criteria for acceptance.

Thank you in advance for your help. Regeneisen (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Regeneisen: that's because the draft cites only primary sources, which cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha[edit]

Hello. I did add reliable independent sources to my article. I also asked and added offline sources to my article. I have already editted the article. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft for review. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Gregcaires[edit]

article submission.

I'm not sure what to do next. We have submitted an article about our organization. Wiki wants more reliable sources about our organization and we have provided what is available. We've even used ChatGPT to produce the article using a neutral tone and following Wiki guideline.s Gregcaires (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content is NOT suitable for Wikipedia please do NOT use ChatGPT. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using ChatGPT to write your article is an almost certain way of getting it declined: see WP:LLM.
More seriously, you say you have submitted an article about "our organization". In that case, you must make a formal declaration on your user page of your status as a paid editor - this is mandatory under Wikipedia's terms of use.
I'm also concerned about your use of "we": Wikipedia accounts are personal, and may not be shared by multiple users. See shared accounts.
Finally, please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the draft for deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. As to the promotion, I'm not sure if the LLM decided to make it sound like an investor's brochure on its own or if it's a garbage in, garbage out situation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 3 July 2024 review of submission by CPNU[edit]

Hello! This draft was recently denied, due to the following reason: "You need independent sources. I don't think you're likely to find many, and we don't usually have articles on individual academic programs. Better to add something about it to Northwestern University."

We are trying to make a page similar to this one: Stonecoast MFA Program in Creative Writing

The article I submitted seems to use the same types of sources and the same types of information as this Stonecoast article. Can you let me know in what way I need to change our article so that it's similar enough to Stonecoast's for approval? I've reviewed the guidelines and can't see exactly what we're missing, particularly in comparison to other similar articles.

Thank you very much! CPNU (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "we", who is "we"? Are you a group of people? MarcGarver (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention, Stonecoast MFA Program in Creative Writing, is severely deficient in WP:independent sources, and may well not meet the criteria for notability: I have just tagged it as such.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of seriously sub-standard articles, mostly dating from before we became more careful about quality. (For some reason, volunteer editors don't seem very eager to spend the thousands of hours which would be required to correct this problem). We don't wish to add to this, so we apply higher standards to new articles. If you want to compare to an existing article, please choose a good article or featured article. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Himay81[edit]

Trying to get a better understanding for the required details to improve this draft article for submission.

The majority of the articles cited indeed cover the topic in depth and come from a variety of news sources (predominantly the national CBC News in addition to the regional CP24 and the more local Brampton Guardian). The declination suggests both that these references are not reliable sources and that the article fails to qualify for submission.

Is the declination a result of not having a significant enough degree of diversity (e.g. quantity of news agencies and/or governmental pressers) in the sources?

Is the declination a result of lacking notability? Himay81 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Thira(79-80)[edit]

the reason why i am requesting assistance is because, the last time my submission was declined i asked if removing the citations i included that didn't provide sufficient information would get my article accepted and also how to go about removing citations, as i couldn't figure out how to do that Thira(79-80) (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thira(79-80): Removing citations wouldn't do you any good. The problem is that you have swathes of text that aren't cited what-so-ever. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Matthew John Drummond[edit]

I’ve added more references to this Wikipedia page. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew John Diamond: All of which prove this show exists. You need to find sources that have discussed or reviewed this programme. Note that we do accept offline sources (since the show aired in the '60's, I would expect the most useful sources to be print sources), but they need to be cited properly:
  • For magazines and newspapers, use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} and provide the name of the outlet, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1924), the article title, the article byline, and the pages the article is on;
  • For books, use {{cite book}} and provide the title, author, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:24, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Shriguru1008[edit]

Why our page was declined Shriguru1008 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shriguru1008: This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have zero use for content in Hindi. Try editing the Hindi-language Wikipedia instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Lisacourtnadge[edit]

Dear Wiki Reviewer, Thank you for taking the time to assist with my query. My draft was declined, so I'm currently editing it to improve the notability. I wanted to ask, is it possible for multiple people to edit it at once? I know others who want to write on my subject, so I'm wondering if we can collaborate, and if there's a simple way to do this. Thank you! Warm regards, Lisa Lisacourtnadge (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisacourtnadge: There is, and it's as simple as giving the collaborators a link to your draft. (Anyone can edit a draft provided they know the exact title of it or otherwise have a link to it.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the reviewer comment "you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, please remove those citations". Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theroadislong,
Thanks for the note! I had made the relevant changes. I wasn't sure how to reply to the user, there was no option to "reply" like there is here. However, I did try to reply, hopefully it's sufficient. Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven't? There are still 14 instances of Wikipedia being used as a reference. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske,
Thank you! I will try that. Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another query - does anyone know if articles from 'Psychology Today' are considered notable? My subject has several articles published on Psychology Today, which I would like to include, but I'm not sure if it is recognised as a credible website. Thanks again! Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisacourtnadge: I assume you mean to ask whether the publication is reliable, rather than 'notable'? There's no firm recommendation one way or the other on Psychology Today at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are a couple of discussions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but nothing conclusive. My understanding is that they employ pretty good fact-checking on their article content, but there is also a lot of blog and similar material which is probably less well verified, if at all. They also feature commercial content (churnalism, advertorials, paid-for directory listings, etc.), which suggests they may be less-than-picky about what gets published if the 'price is right'. In short, the publication may well be solid, but you need to evaluate the specific content individually. That's my take on it, anyway. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sod much! Lisacourtnadge (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Mkabir1988[edit]

I think this reviewer Saqib is acting in bad faith and turning down a submission because of his own bias. He seems to be doing that on other wikipedia pages as well if you look at his history. He says being quoted in Dawn newspaper is not a notable mention for the drama? Dawn newspaper is the most widely read newspapers in Pakistan - google it. The citations quoted in the article meet the criteria of notability. Mkabir1988 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkabir1988: No, it's low-effort breathless-hype style sources, plus a random YouTube video from an unverified channel. You don't even cite Dawn in your draft. (I would also strongly recommend you tone down the accusations of bias.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jeske. The Dawn citation is added in now. Mkabir1988 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 3 July 2024 review of submission by JC haters[edit]

i want to post this article on wikipedia , how do i do it and submit it JC haters (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

01:43, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Love o3oz[edit]

I am having a hard time trying to find sufficient sources for Duvalín despite its prevalence in Mexico. Help Love o3oz (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Love o3oz if the only source cited right now is the only one you could find, the topic is probably not notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:21, 4 July 2024 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004[edit]

i have created the draft with all the necessary info regarding TMS before Kyokuichi however how long does it take to get approved? VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: there's no way of telling, depends on when a reviewer comes along to review it. You only submitted this a week ago, and as it says on top of the draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,112 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Happypanda0720[edit]

After drafting, I resubmitted it reflecting the feedback. But why isn't it still uploaded? What additional modifications should I make? Happypanda0720 (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Happypanda0720: I don't know what "uploaded" means, do you mean published? Drafts are only published in the encyclopaedia when (if) they are approved. This draft was declined on 14 June, and hasn't been submitted since, so it is not currently even pending another review, unless/until you resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no point in submitting it in its present form: you have added three sources, two of them from Daeil, and the third, by the look of it, a mere listing.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
Unless you can find at least three sources each of which is reliably published, wholly independent of Daeil, and contains significant coverage of Daiel, not just routine business information, you are wasting your time and everybody else's. You can check each of your proposed sources against WP:42.
If you can find such sources, then you probably need to start again, because you should write a summary of what those sources say, not what the company wants to say, or from what you personally know about the company.
You also must reply urgently to the two separate queries on your user talk page about your relationship with the company, or you risk having your account blocked for misuse of editing privileges (see WP:PAID). ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Quillandinksociety[edit]

I have seen wikipedia with no quality content, citations and references. those pages are doing just fine. wikipedia moderators are taking bribes from companies to publish pages and demotivating genuine users to post their content if there is no bribe involved. This is the ground reality. Quillandinksociety (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quillandinksociety: please stop going around accusing others of bribe-taking etc., personal attacks are not tolerated here and are a surefire way to get yourself blocked. And that's on top of your spamming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quillandinksociety That is a very serious accusation, and it requires serious evidence. Please present your evidence as described at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors- or withdraw the claim. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 4 July 2024 review of submission by 46.190.72.218[edit]

Thank you for the comments. I think I did the necessary changes citing sources and removing external links. My sources are major international art magazines,major museum mages and international exhibitions pages. Are these considered reliable sources? If not what other sources do you propose for a contemporary Greek artist? Since Wikipedia does not list many contemporary Greek artists it would be helpful for me to know more and add more artists in the future. About the work section do you find the citations long? Would you prefer a shorter mention without putting quotes like "writer Stephanie Bailey" or "in an interview the artist has stated" etc? As for example in Wikipedia page for FYTA. Thank you in advance. 46.190.72.218 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). 331dot (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three requirements for sources to be used to establish notability: reliability is only one of them. The other two are independence and significant coverage.
I haven't looked at your sources, but when you talk about "major museum mages and international exhibitions pages", I immediately think that you are talking about museums and exhibitions who have displayed this artist's work. If that is the case, then those sources are not independent, cannot contribute to establishing that the artist meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and may be used only to support uncontroversial factual data, such as that the artist's work was exhibited at this museum on those dates. Unless there are also independent sources for that particular exhibition, I wonder why it is encyclopaedic enough to appear in the article? ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Jeo Ayapana[edit]

cause i need this information Jeo Ayapana (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeo Ayapana: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 4 July 2024 review of submission by 106.201.241.199[edit]

Correction in Title as "Indian Drugs" the current title is wrong (India Drugs) 106.201.241.199 (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, as speedy deletion has been requested, so the wrong title will soon vanish along with the wrong draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Lionel888555[edit]

Hi

This article has been declined due to "Several sections are unsourced". Could you please point me toward which section needs more sources? Is it the filmography, books, paper..?

Thank you for you help Lionel888555 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionell888555: I think that's only part of the issue. The draft reads like a cirriculum vitae, which we do not accept. As to the text:
  • "[Princigalli] was born in Bari on August 24, 1968 and moved to Montreal in January 2003." - Source?
  • "Despite his father's work, his family lived for a long time in public housing and later in a state building for public employees." - Source?
  • "In Italy he was a member of the [Italian Youth Communist Federation] and of the La Pantera student movement (for which he was a delegate to the national assembly in Florence)." - Source?
  • "He was a leader of the [Italian Cultural and Recreative Association][...]" - Source?
  • "[Princigalli] graduated in Political Science with a thesis directed by the sociologist Franco Cassano." - Source?
  • "He later studied documentary cinema with Carlo Alberto Pinelli, anthropological cinema with Annie Comolli, and screenwriting with Giuseppe Piccioni and Umberto Contarello." - Need a source for each of these.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply I will see what I can do to improve Lionel888555 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Paulanthonylevi[edit]

Hello, Hi,

I recently submitted an article draft for Tobias Dray, which was declined due to concerns about the reliability of sources and notability criteria. The decline notice mentioned that my references did not adequately demonstrate significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.

I have reviewed similar articles, such as the one on Verzache, which seem to use a comparable range of sources and references. Could you please provide more detailed guidance on what specific aspects of my references or sources were insufficient?

Here is a brief overview of the references I used:

Anime News Network - Announced Tobias Dray's collaboration project. Flaunt Magazine - Premiered Tobias Dray's visual for "Twice". The FADER - Listed one of Tobias Dray's songs as one of the best rock songs. Nettwerk Music Group - Profiled Tobias Dray. Ones To Watch - Featured an article on Tobias Dray. EARMILK - Reviewed Tobias Dray’s song "FUK IT". Genius - Credits for Tobias Dray's work. HiphopKR - Covered Tobias Dray's EP. 360 Magazine - Reviewed Tobias Dray's work. The Guardian - Discussed the revival of drum and bass


I would greatly appreciate your assistance in identifying how I can improve my submission. Any detailed feedback or pointers on how to address the issues raised would be extremely helpful.

Thank you for your time and assistance. 

Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless "His artistic evolution is marked by an unpredictable trajectory, making it impossible to predict what he will explore next." is a quote it is inappropriate tone for an encyclopaedia and creating a TikTok account to promote his music and branding is clearly not even worth mentioning as it confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TikTok wasn't used as a reference, SocialBlade was to indicate numbers. Others Wikipedia pages uses that reference as well to input metrics Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong topic! Yes you are right thank you so much for your help! Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulanthonylevi: Twitter and the Genius 'community answers' are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, comparing to other articles is not helpful, as they may well have issues which haven't been picked up yet. In any case, we don't assess drafts by reference to articles that may exist out there, but rather to the currently applicable guidelines and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TikTok wasn't used as a reference, SocialBlade was to indicate numbers. Others Wikipedia pages uses that reference as well to input metric Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got you, thank you. Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got you, thank you Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Edelmiro Lopez[edit]

Bonjour. I would like to have this draft for a "speedy deletion". No better sources available for me than what I have already given. The text is now in my sandbox but it will probably take years before new sources will appear for me. Merci beaucoup. --Edelmiro Lopez (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edelmiro Lopez: You can tag the draft for deletion with {{db-g7}}. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Merci, thank you very much. --Edelmiro Lopez (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Cisaa11[edit]

Hello. I'd like to know why this subject is not notable enough, like what is the criteria that Freshly Shopping did not pass. Also, why was this rejected even before the article was submitted for review? Cisaa11 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cisaa11: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about something you made up one day.
And I rejected it c. 20 minutes after it was submitted, not before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was correctly rejected after you submitted it (see the edit history) the topic is clearly not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 4 July 2024 review of submission by M Hanan Asif[edit]

I would like to create an article about Win-Doors INT LTD a business in south-east London however it keeps getting declined. I have all the information about it yet I still cannot publish it. M Hanan Asif (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @M Hanan Asif! Unfortunately your draft has now been rejected, which means it will not be published unless you can find some very convincing new sources. You cannot use any sources that are connected to the company - not their website, not their suppliers' websites, not interviews with the owner or CEO or anyone else - and the find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk pages are also no good for your draft. What you need is outlined in WP:42 - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (the company, in this case). Look for things like newspaper articles about the company, articles that someone has written just because they were interested in the company, without any input from anyone in the company. If you can't find at least three sources that fit all the WP:42 criteria, we can't publish an article on the subject. If you do find three or more suitable sources, you should then completely rewrite the draft using only the information in those sources, and then politely ask the last reviewer of your draft if they'd be willing to look again. Good luck, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you.
Can you give me a few weeks then to sort this out? M Hanan Asif (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take as long as you'd like. There's no deadline. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) M Hanan Asif (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 5[edit]

10:39, 5 July 2024 review of submission by RedMacryon[edit]

This page is already existent in German Wikipedia. I have taken the liberty to spend the time verifiying the accuracy of the information present on the german version of the page. Then I tried to do a translation via the draft, but it got declined, since I was unable to provide an interlanguage link. If I try to translate an english page into german that works no problem but for some reason translating any non-eglish wikipedia pages into english is a pain. And please do not bring up the argument that it is unnecesary due to being about a german speaking nation, there are refugees and asylum seekers here who do NOT speak german and would probably also want to look up information about government ministries. RedMacryon (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my text I have realized that my tone sounds quite harsh. I just wanted to quickly comment to clarify that I am merely confused as to how to correctly make such an interlanguage link work and why it is noticeably different to do this in english compared to german wikipedia. Furthemore another small issue is the fact that most sources of this topic would be primary sources (from the Austrian Government) and therefore mostly in german. My assumption is this might throw the "notability" and "external sources" part, but these are governmental departments of a recognized nation state so, how does this affect it? RedMacryon (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was not declined "since I was unable to provide an interlanguage link": that would be a complete irrelevance. Your draft was declined because it does not contain even one citation.
In English Wikipedia, an article is a summary of what is said in several independent, reliable source, that is all. If you do not cite the sources, a reader or reviewer has no way of verifying that its contents are correct.
Every citation should be inline (see WP:REFB), and to a reliable source. User-generated sources such as wikis (including Wikipedia) are almost never regarded as reliable. ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am attempting to do a translation of another already existent page on wikipedia, and given that the page already contains enough credible sourcing to be verified, would it be an issue if certain sources which I would provide overlap with the source of the to be translated page?
Of course I will also try to find additional sources which are in english but given the topic I assume that some of the information I provide would still only be available in german, is this allowed/useful?
I was not aware that the translation aspect of writing an article was to be declared AFTER finalizing the article in the languge I am translating into. The ressources explaining that seemingly must have confused me or somehow not specified that enough RedMacryon (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources in foreign languages can be used, as long as they support the statements that cite them. The German article you're translating doesn't cite any sources though, so what did you mean by given that the page already contains enough credible sourcing to be verified? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well since this is the case would it be arguable that it does NOT have enough credible sourcing to justify verification? If yes, how did it get published in the first place?
I do know that certain sub-pages it links to such as the separate ministries themselves do contain sources but even given that it is surprising. RedMacryon (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I don't know how dewiki editors kept the article. It was created back in 2016, and if it was submitted here on the English Wikipedia today, it would almost certainly be declined as it is completely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay alright. Sorry if I sounded beligerent in any way I was just genuinely confused on whats going on.
I will try to (when time permits) write an improved version of the page I tried to submit (incl. Citations ofc) and maybe while I am at it add some sources to the germany version.
Thank you for taking the time RedMacryon (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RedMacryon: why are you assuming this was declined for lack of interlanguage links? That's not a reason to decline anything, and if you mean those article-level links (listed in the language menu), those shouldn't even be added until after the article is published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of explains why it was not possible to add those and also is kind of confusing since the help page regarding translating an article in wikipedia does say it has to be done before publishing (is there an alternative help page that says different or is this language specific). I made the mistaken assumption that it was necesary to publish the page (instead of leaving it a Draft, I am aware it was not cited yet, I had inteded to still do that) in order to add a link between the translation and the original language wiki article, which then turned out to still not be possible. RedMacryon (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RedMacryon: ah okay, now I know what you mean. The help page (WP:HOWTRANS) says you must attribute the original (non-English) article as the source, and to provide a 'courtesy link' to it in the edit summary (rather than linking to it via the languages menu, as I thought you meant). Yes, that should indeed be done when you first create the draft, and not wait until it gets published. But failing to do it still wouldn't cause for the draft to be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RedMacryon I tend to recommend {{translated page}} on the talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you for that RedMacryon (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Rani147[edit]

Hello sir ,Is there something wrong with writing my article? If there is a mistake, please correct it. Then I will benefit. Rani147 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rani147: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rani147 You will benefit by understanding WP:NACTOR 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Natieboi[edit]

Hi, very simple question, how do i make my draft better? He says that there are two sources with an unknown amount of reliability, I think both sources are pretty reliable, and i argued my reasons here ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Natieboi#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_S%C3%BCleyman_Ulu%C3%A7ay_(June_28) ) but he as not responded. I also can't find any more sources on this guy, i don't know why im talking about this here as im not sure anyone can really help me with this. Thanks Natieboi (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Natieboi: the first source is a close primary one (the website of the municipality of which he is the mayor), the other doesn't really support anything in this draft and doesn't even mention him, therefore neither of them contributes anything towards notability per WP:GNG. You need to find more and better sources to satisfy the GNG standard, and that is therefore how to make your draft better. If such sources cannot be found, as you say, then it isn't possible to publish this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Simon Tuliameni[edit]

I'm requesting my article to be uploaded, because the person i wrote about it a Namibian artist and he is still in the Music industry, in Namibian music soon he will be one at the top. His Name Is Wessie Hastings . Simon Tuliameni (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission has been rejected and is not subject to further consideration. For the future, I would suggest reading up on our policies and guidelines, such as wp:musicbio and wp:gng. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 15:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give this subject a few more months or years, and once enough reliable sources and accolades come in, we can then revisit his case. (Dropping in a related link, Music of Namibia, in the meantime; par for the course with similar African-based topics, that field is apparently underrepresented here on WP.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Mrtony77[edit]

This draft was turned down for lack of citations. I'm not sure what in the article is not supported by a citation. The photo is substatiated by his obituary. The awards are supported by his photo. His published articles are cited to the journals which published them and a list hosted by Google Scholar. While there is more to add in terms of his career and academic path, I don't see anything lacking a citation in what's included at this point. Mrtony77 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrtony77: We need more than "look at the photo" for the medals. You need citations for those per WP:BLP (which applies here as the subject only died recently). "was a colonel in the United States Army who served as a physician specializing in clinical pathology for the United States Army Medical Corps." also needs cites. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for the feedback. I looked at many profiles for U.S. military officers living and dead and saw none having any citations for their awards. David K. MacEwen is an example. As far as I can find online, there is no comprehensive list of all recipients of all U.S. military awards. WP:BLP likewise has no specific requirement regarding their citation. His rank, branch of service and membership in the US Army Medic Corp are also all substantiated by the insignia on his uniform. Again, his photo substantiates that information to a greater degree than that of other U.S. Military officers sucgh as Trevor N. Dupuy. The fact that he was a clinical pathologist is substantiated by the published articles which he wrote and I cited. Please provide some additional guidance or examples as to where such additional citations may be found. Mrtony77 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mrtony77! You've run into one of Wikipedia's biggest minefields for new article writers: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, not all articles are created equal, and ones that were written in the early days of Wikipedia often would not be accepted today - unless they've undergone some serious rewrites and updates over the years. Certainly David K. MacEwen's article would not be acceptable today, and I've tagged it as unreferenced in the hopes that references can be found - if not, it will have to be deleted. If you've found other articles in the same state, we'd really appreciate you either linking them or tagging them yourself. Everyone here is a volunteer and no matter how hard we work, many articles get missed while we try to keep Wikipedia as reliable and informative as possible.
Now, onto actual instructions. What you're trying to do with your draft is establish that Col. Angritt is notable by Wikipedia's very exacting standards. Most people aren't, so this step can be tricky! Your goal is to match the criteria found in WP:BIO - there's a lot of options, so please have a look and decide which you think Angritt meets. You will then need to find at least three sources that meet WP:42, the "golden rule": significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (that is to say, independent of Angritt). As Jéské mentioned above, because Angritt only died recently, you also need to abide by WP:BLP, so every single statement needs to be backed up by a suitable source. BLPs are the hardest kind of article to write because of these extra requirements.
The sort of source you're looking for is something like a newspaper article, or a book, or something along those lines, that talks about Angritt's life and achievements. Sources can be online or offline, and in any language (although English is preferred as we're on the English Wikipedia). His uniform can't be a reliable source, because anyone can take a photo in a uniform (Stolen valor is unfortunately a thing) and of course Photoshop also exists. This next bit will sound strange, I realize, but stating that he was a clinical pathologist without a source that specifically says that is considered original research. This is because Wikipedia can only report facts that have been established by others, not put two and two together to come up with four. In this case, we can't look at the research he's done and then say he must have been a clinical pathologist because of that. Again, I know you've seen other articles that don't follow this rule, and again I can only say that we are doing our very best to make sure every article is compliant but there are millions of articles (and more every single day). A huge amount of volunteer time is taken up working on new articles, adding new information to older articles, and patrolling in an effort to remove vandalism and incorrect information. If you want to see what the patrolling volunteers are dealing with, peek at Recent Changes! And of course, there's people like Jéské and I who also like to hang around here and talk to editors working on drafts. The people trying to clean up old articles (I am one of them, too) are hugely outnumbered by the old articles that need cleaning. If you're interested in military history, your assistance and efforts in tidying up those older articles would be very much appreciated.
I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in explaining what your next steps should be; if you have questions, please keep asking and either I or someone else will be back to answer them. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for the feedback. I have written several articles in the past, but about someone to whom I am related nor who recently died so I am being extra careful in this case. I don't believe there is anything controversial about this article's and I am being as thorough as humanly possible about citing everything. I will continue to work on this probably resubmit it in August once he is no longer considered to be recently deceased. Mrtony77 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Nenarodz[edit]

I got a notification for citing reliable sources and im trying to figure out which sources cited in the references should be removed and how do I delete them? I tried editing the reference list but it won't let me remove any it only lets me add more. Need assistance with removing of references. Nenarodz (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nenarodz I am a little confused. You created this as a draft and created it with references, You add and subtract references n the same manner that you added them on 27 January.
You may wish to revise the contents of WP:REFB and WP:CITE.
Since the draft is now an article your source for assistance should migrate to WP:TEAHOUSE, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Abiola adeola[edit]

I have drafted a wiki article I believe is worthy of inclusion to Wikpedia. As Safari Scribe instructed, I have ensured that I have written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. I have also provided news coverage from mutiple soures including Arise News, the Punch Newspaper, This Day Newspaper etc. and I have covered the INGO's contribution to parliamentary reports and its acknowlegdement and interraction with various Civil servants, Diplomats and Government Officials in the UK & Nigeria. Please could you kindly explain to me why my article is still not Wikipeadia worthy? I would be extremely grateful for as much detail as you can give. Abiola adeola (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abiola adeola You have described the routine activities of the organization, as well as it's "mission"(which is wholly unencyclopedic and should be removed). We don't want a summary of the activities of the organization, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling what the organization does, and goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about the organization.
You need to formally disclose your conflict of interest, please see WP:COI. If you receive any form of compensation for your role(it doesn't have to be money or even anything tangible), the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. Note that articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic- an organization trying to force the issue itself isn't often successful. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the steer and useful links. For these I am extremely grateful. I am also happy to remove the "Mission" section on the draft, this is not an issue (I am a practicing lawyer & a PhD candidate, but I have honestly got to admit I am struggling with writing the wiki way! haha! its a whole new style of writing for me! but i am happy to learn :D). I believed i had disclosed my COI formally, but would be happy to go through the neccessary steps. As for getting paid, I am NOT in any form paid. This is an organisation I volunteer with. I am not paid by the organisation in anyway (unless of course solving human right violations are a considered a form of payment haha!) As for the organisation trying to "force the issue" This could be furthest from the case. I was not asked to do this in anyway, I simply believed that due to activites, attaianments and influence of the organisation, it was noteworthy. I signed up as an editor to do things the right way here. With all of that being said, due to my COI does this mean I should give up on trying to get the article published? I feel as though with your statement regarding "forcing the issue" I am more or less fighting a losing battle (so to speak). Again I am new to Wikipeadia, and would appreciate the steer. If the response is pack it up due to the COI, at least I'd know and would no longer expend my effort. I hope you get what i mean? Abiola adeola (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abiola adeola Lawyers are adaptable! The text we need is flat, neutral. "dull-but-worthy" with citations for facts.
Your COI is an obstacle, a personal one for you, not for the org. You would do better to learn your trade here in non COI areas. It's very hard to write here when you have no COI. Writing when you have one allows unconscious bias to creep in, almost however careful we are.
Once you are confident you can work in Wikipedia style, revisit IOPBSJ with pleasure. Until then I recommend setting it aside. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did mention your COI in an edit summary, but it should also be mentioned on your user page(User:Abiola adeola) 331dot (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly just looking for a steer in the right direction that goes beyond the generic wikipaedia text. i really want to get this right :D Abiola adeola (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abiola adeola 331dot just gave you that steer. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 6[edit]

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

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

Thank you,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated the article

added official networks and information

removed unnecessary web pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tradelady2: please don't start making assumptions, let alone hurling around slurs and accusations, of discriminatory or biased reviewing, unless you have pretty solid evidence to back that up.
Being "one of the most prominent women architects in the eastern United States" is not a notability criterion, nor is being mentioned in a Wikipedia article. The relevant notability guidelines are WP:ARCHITECT and WP:GNG, at least one of which must be satisfied, as evidenced by reliable sources. As this wasn't done, the draft was eventually rejected (over six months ago). If evidence is now available which wasn't considered at the time, you may appeal the rejection, by contacting the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My request for help was delayed by six months because I have been ill with a serious heart problem that halted my work on Wikipedia biographies of women.
In my view Ms Reatig more than meets the notability guidelines for an architect having received many awards for her work and having been recognized by name by prominent architectural critics from the Washington Post and the New York Times. This was all shown in the latest posted draft and I don't see why it is not sufficient. Perhaps you could find an editor who specializes in architects who could help me understand what more needs to be written. Tradelady2 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: a reviewer doesn't need to specialise in architects or architecture in order to review a draft on those topics. We assess the draft by reference to the relevant guidelines, pure and simple.
If by "the latest posted draft" you mean as it currently stands following your 2 April edit, then please note that that edit was several months after the draft was rejected on 12 December, and it is quite likely that no one has even looked at the draft since the rejection, other than you of course (and now me). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tradelady2: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
All of your offline sources are missing their page numbers; this is required info in order to look up the source in an offline archive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all these comments sent so quickly. Before I attend a revision, I would like to respond to each one (using the footnote numbers) and ask for advice on how to proceed further in some situations:
  1. For footnote 1 I can only access this article in the Washington Post's Digital Archive which does not contain a page number (perhaps because the article was published 33 years ago?). It's available to subscribers and through libraries. Does that mean the source needs to be deleted?
  2. Footnote 2 referencing the Wikipedia article on the Metropolitan Church of D.C. was not intended to indicate a supportive source but simply to point to the relevant section of that long article. The same is true for Footnote 5. If this is not allowed, these two footnotes will be removed and only the "internal link" will be shown.
  3. For footnote 3 the page # is 2-37. I have no trouble accessing the article but I am a subscriber to New York Times and also have access through a public library. If the NYT archive is walled off for some people, does that mean I can no longer cite it?
  4. The Washington Business Journal article in footnote 4 is online only now and has no page number. It is available through public libraries. Does it need to be deleted?
  5. See comment for footnote 2
  6. Footnotes 6,7 & 9: Reatig is "running a one person architectural firm." Until recently she was the only licensed architect in the firm and I guess that's why it's called Suzane Reatig Architecture. Any awards given to that firm were really given to her.
  7. The link in footnote 8 is now bouncing to the home page instead of the list of awards. I'll try to figure out the problem and get it fixed.
  8. Footnote 10 is another NYT article available to me online with no page number. Does it need to be deleted?
  9. I agree that access to this WP article in footnote 11seems OK
  10. Footnote 12: See comment to footnote 4 above.
  11. I also can no longer access the Ebony Magazine article in footnote 13. So I will delete this source.
  12. In footnote 14, Reatig's contribution to making boring Washington D.C. more colorful is mentioned about 2/3 way through the article. I can delete this source if it doesn't seem sufficient.
  13. In footnote 15, Reatig's name on this list confirms her election to "fellow" of the American Institute of Architects, the highest honor her profession confers. If this doesn't indicate she and her work are recognized as "notable" I don't know what would and perhaps I should just stop this project now (which I will if you tell me this is a waste of time)!!
Tradelady2 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 7[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just spent several hours to translate

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

into

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User TimTrent stated that three resources qualified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 8[edit]

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

Hi, 

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

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

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

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

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

@Gracewith: putting aside the question of whether a Padma Shri award should confer automatic notability, it seems we have two different Gyan Chand Jains both claiming to be the 2002 recipient, Draft:Gyan C. Jain and Gyan Chand Jain. Looks like among other things we need to get to the bottom of which of these is the actual recipient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I wouldn't say your sources are particularly good. You cite all sorts of stuff, from bookshops to YouTube clips to website home pages and other sources that don't really seem to support the information in this draft. That leads me to think this was most likely correctly declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Greenonion10: it's not a question of adding more information, it's supporting the information that is there better, and also demonstrating that the subject is notable according to the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage (not just passing mentions, statistics, 'profiles', routine match reporting, etc.) in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@SageOst2024: iNaturalist isn't a usable source (circular reference; it pulls from Wikipedia). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on identification from naturalists that know what they are saying, with sources sited should count as useable though. I might be able to dig something up if that is allowed. SageOst2024 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SageOst2024: Your draft was declined, not rejected; feel free to keep finding sources. And literally the entirety of the iNaturalist source is reused Wikipedia content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti It is the eating of grass from a field twice instead of once. What did you think it was? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti, @DoubleGrazing is the name that a particular editor has chosen for their Wikipedia account. If you look over this page, you will see that they are one of the most prolific responders to questions here. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


July 9[edit]

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

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

@Ndmmeyhhsn: As a rule, everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable.
  • "Tedeschi was born in Flemington, New Jersey[...]" - Source?
  • "[Tedeschi] graduated from Hunterdon Central Regional High School in 1974." - Source?
  • "He holds an AAS degree in Photography from the Rochester Institute of Technology (1976)[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]BFA degree in Design from the Kansas City Art Institute (1981)[...]" - Source?
  • "Tedeschi began his professional arts career in 1973 as a freelance photographer for the New York Times and other smaller publications[...]" - Source?
  • "[Tedeschi] was a designer with various firms, most notably HNTB Architects in Kansas City (1980–1981)[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]and Landor Associates in San Francisco (1982–1986, and intermittently 1995–1997)." - Source?
  • "Tedeschi began studying martial arts in 1974 under Joseph Jennings[...]" - Source?
  • "He moved to San Francisco in 1981, where he later trained extensively in Hapkido, Taekwondo, Jujutsu, and Judo." - Source?
  • "His primary martial arts teachers[...]" - One source for each one. (There is no need for four sources on a claim.)
Lastly, we do not need an exhaustive bibliography. A "greatest hits" selection is preferred, ideally those which have been reviewed in academia or the news. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@SLMSLMJS: The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. This looks like a research essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1233425634"