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


May 9[edit]

01:09, 9 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener[edit]

Hello Again, I have created another message because my other message was ignored, I am certified that my article about the School falls under the Notability guidelines and regulations as I said in my previous message, the Articles provide the Awards and Achievements of the school, the Visit of U.S Marines and Sailors and even featured on a segment in Philippine National Television that was premiered through GMA Public Affairs the biggest network in the Philippines. So, I Ask again to see and to double check my article so it would be release to the Article Page.

thank you for your consideration -Rex Scrivener RexScrivener (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener none of those points you have just made meet the requirements of WP:NORG or WP:GNG. As you have been told in every decline message. The awards and visitors do not indicate any sort of notability as far as the English Wikipedia is concerned. Please read through the decline messages links and the one in this message to help you better understand what is required. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for replying on the issues regarding the article, i believe the sources that i use are reliable and certified, also with your response i edited the article base on the requirements and perhaps you or anyone can check the sources that i place to fully verified it is true.
thank you again - RexScrivener (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would like to petition that this article is fine, I see other schools that are in Wikipedia, and it did not even follow the guidelines, but it was approve, so I'm asking for equality that this article may be uploaded to the article page. i am asking with sincerity. thank you RexScrivener (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener Please stop creating new sections and just respond in the existing location. At this point since you are not listening and the draft has been rejected it will not be considered any further. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry if i did not follow your instruction, maybe i was too exited the article to be publish or release. I offer my deepest apologies and i would like to continue to work on this project and maybe in the future you guys will approve of it. Again im very sorry for such in a hurry of this work. RexScrivener (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, in your previous post (which was not "ignored" - volunteers here are in different timezones, and have real lives) your draft has been rejected. I strongly advise you not to waste any more of your time on it. ColinFine (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:44, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 111.125.122.184[edit]

Good Day, Im a student at this school and I’m very happy to see this article on google and other search engines soon, regarding the issue that was raised by Rex Scrivener, i think he is too rush but correct at the same time. Regardless im very happy someone created an article about my school and thank you for the admins of help desk for being professional. 111.125.122.184 (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like other reviewers have answered above, the draft does not meet WP:NORG. It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Also, please stop creating new sections for the same draft. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 178.135.18.17[edit]

helloo, thank you so much for your comments on my article, may i please know how can i add reliable sources? i already added 22 sources, can you give me example?

sincerely,

Tonio F. Mrad 178.135.18.17 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are indeed 22 citations (speaking of which, do we really need 11 of them to support the last two short paragraphs?), but they are all in the last approx ⅓ of the draft, with most of the content unreferenced. This would be problematic in any draft, but especially so in articles on living people (WP:BLP) which require comprehensive inline citations throughout. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a citation is to verify a specific piece or pieces of information in an article, nothing else. If a piece of information is already verified by a citation, it is a waste of everybody's time to add another citation for it. See WP:OVERCITE.
Meanwhile, in a BLP, if there is information which is not supported by a citation, that is a problem. ColinFine (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:10, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Antwan123123[edit]

need assistance on what to do to make this article suitable for wikipedia Antwan123123 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seven declines and a rejection there is probably nothing you can do, beyond accept that they are not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antwan123123: also for future reference, when a draft has been declined, especially if it already has a history of multiple previous declines, do not resubmit it without any attempt to address the decline reasons. This signals to the reviewers that you are unable and/or unwilling to develop the draft further, which leads to the inevitable conclusion, like it did here, that the draft's current state is the best it will be, and if that isn't good enough for publication then there is logically no option left but to reject it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Jasmineanna[edit]

Hi, i've added new references for the page Simon Ree, can you please let me know if these reference are inline with what you are after? Jasmineanna (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasmineanna what is your association with Simon Ree? There is utterly no indication that he is notable by our standards. Qcne (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:34, 9 May 2024 review of submission by B.sooshiant[edit]

hello dear friendI have tried my best to keep this article up to date. Could you please not delete it and help me complete it?

respect and regard B.sooshiant (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B.sooshiant this draft has now been rejected, and will not be considered further. If you feel the draft has substantially changed since the last rejection, please reach out to @TheTechie. Qcne (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Thanks for the ping. I now know what to expect. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 9 May 2024 review of submission by RadisonRathod[edit]

Hi , Can someone check and mark this page as reviewed. So that it would appear on google and search engine as well. Thankyou. RadisonRathod (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadisonRathod please see WP:INDEXING. Qcne (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RadisonRathod: that's not an AfC matter, that's one for WP:NPP. In any case, it was reviewed two days ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Marisa at Klick[edit]

Hi. I'm feeling very confused as to why my draft was declined. There are 58 references, many of which are significant or in-depth coverage by independent, reliable global and business media or leading trade journals. There are also numerous industry-leading awards. This makes a strong case for notability, and I'd appreciate another review. Thanks a lot for your help, I appreciate your time. Marisa at Klick (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marisa at Klick: it is true that you have 58 (!) citations in your draft, but that's not necessarily a good thing, as you seem to think, it might actually work against you; see WP:REFBOMB and WP:CITEKILL. In short, 5 solid sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard are better than 58 that don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @DoubleGrazing. I believe it is the best of both worlds: we have several references that describe the company's history, operations, products, and awards… and Klick also meets the notability guideline. This draft cites major business news coverage, including Fast Company, Forbes (by a staff writer), Toronto Business Daily, and CNBC. Then we cite leading health and marketing trade publications, including Ad Age, Strategy, Clio, The Drum, Campaign, MM+M, PM360, and MobiHealthNews. Last, Klick is a multiple-award winning company with recognition from Cannes, Clio, Fortune, Fast Company, Ad Age, and MM+M. I think the case for notability is clear with the number and relevance of sources. Marisa at Klick (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list three and only three sources that you think prove the notability of this company? The sources must all be independent of each other, from reliable places, contain significant coverage, and be secondary to the company. Qcne (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne, Here are three sources that are independent, reliable, secondary, and significant:
  1. Globe and Mail
  2. MM+M
  3. Toronto Business Daily
I'm happy to add more. Thank you. Marisa at Klick (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Marisa at Klick.
  1. I can't access this one (though it is fine to use sources that are paywalled) - do you have an alternative?
  2. My concern with this one is that it has quotes from the CEO and co-president (not independent), and is in the sort of gushing style similar to regurgitated PR pieces.
  3. Again, this is just regurgitating an award ceremony announcement. The source is fine to cite the award, but doesn't establish notability.
Got three more I can look at? Qcne (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qcne,
The Globe and Mail is available to read in full here: Globe and Mail at web.archive.org.
As for sources 2 and 3, respectfully, it doesn't make sense to me that we can't use media which quotes the principals of the company; business news quotes principals of companies as a normal practice – not a PR tactic. A source can still be secondary and independent even if it quotes the principals of the company in the context of reliable reporting.
In addition, here are four more sources you can use, which makes a total of seven.
a. Strategy
b. Campaign Canada
c. Campaign Asia
d. Yale School of Management
I think I have complied with every request you've made as well as what is required per the notability and verifiability policies. Thank you again for your consideration. Marisa at Klick (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Marisa at Klick. In addition to the helpful coverage @ColinFine replied with, I think it's worth reading WP:ORGIND, especially the bit "Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.".
The difficult thing about the first three sources you gave is that they have some of the hallmarks of churnalism- just regurgitating quotes from the CEO etc without much independent analysis.
I'm looking deeply at strategyonline.ca now, and this is my assessment:
- The article extensively discusses Klick's achievements and future plans without presenting any critiques or external perspectives.
- There's no indication that the article provides independent analysis or commentary from sources outside of Klick. The info seems to be derived directly from the company's internal announcements and press releases.
I derive the same assessment from campaigncanada.ca, mmm-online, torontobusinessdaily too.
In good news, the Globe and Mail is a much better article:
- It puts Klick into the wider context for Canada, includes industry studies, exploration of challenges etc. This is much more of a case study piece of journalism and is the type of thing that confers notability.
The sagepub.com study looks good too.
A few more sources like the Globe and Mail would be excellent.
I hope that clarifies things, and let me know if you have any questions! Qcne (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gave me a lot to think about and I appreciate the time you spent on the article. Just letting you know that I've resubmitted a version focused on source quality. Thank you again. Marisa at Klick (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 9 May 2024 review of submission by Djmooyall23[edit]

I don't know why my article has not been approved and published although I have paid for this task to create the content for Daniel Marc Mouyal who is a famous rapper and hip-hop singer belongs to Florida, Can anyone please help me publish the right way if I have mistakenly do something against the policy, But I have all the references authentic... Djmooyall23 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djmooyall23: I'm confused, it seems you've written about yourself, but you say you've paid for someone else to write this? Only one of those can be true, but be that as it may, please see WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PAID. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No i am not writting this article for myself, actually i am a freelancer and my client have provided each thing about has self life detail and i have to create an article for him here on wikipedia... Djmooyall23 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear @Djmooyall23. I suggest you give Daniel a refund on your services. Qcne (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Daniel here. I'm who Samir is writing about. He is doing a good job, I encourage that he proceeds with writing my article. I have companies looking to start working with me and they look for influencers, singers, actors who have a Wiki page. I have plenty of PR and have been on radio as well as newspapers. An issue I've had was finding reputable Wiki contributors who'd write an article for me. Samir just needs very specific proper guidance and he'll do just fine. I'm walking through this process with him step by step and improving the grammar and fact checking along the way. Thank you. Youalreadyknowrecords (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Youalreadyknowrecords frankly there is no evidence you are notable by our standards and therefore you do not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Please refund Samir for his services. Qcne (talk) 07:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmooyall23 I wonder if you have fallen victim to this WP:SCAM? Qcne (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero independent, reliable sources, and the draft is full of hagiographic promotion, fails WP:NSINGER and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Qcne implied, you appear to have taken on a task which you do not yet have the requisite skills to perform.
I always advise new editors to spend several months learning how Wikipedia works by making edits to existing articles, before even thinking of creating a new article. Once you have understood principles like reliable sources, neutral point of view and notability, then is the time to read your first article, and start trying to create an article ColinFine (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am paid by Daniel Marc Mouyal $50.00 on fiverr.com as a freelancer to write the article and upload it to wikipedia.org for him since he is featured in notable newspaper "The Jerusalem Post" and many online entertainment news sources such as "genius.com" "thesis50.com" and many more. Daniel Mouyal was also on #3 Hip-hop/R&B Canada charts on "Apple Music" and has over 18,000 subscribers on Youtube ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCk3hNPVssFQReVqjLCluQNA ). Daniel Mouyal is a rising sensation in music and entertainment, I have researched on him and read dfferent blogs and articles on different online media and he is an authentic sources famouse person he is well known as a singer on the internet.
Also below are the references you can check from an authentic sources ...
• https://genius.com/a/watch-daniel-mouyals-a-little-too-much-music-video
• https://www.jpost.com/special-content/daniel-mouyal-releases-a-little-too-much-off-of-new-album-yeshiva-freshman-743187
• https://thisis50.com/2023/04/15/daniel-mouyal-is-next-to-blow/
• https://thisis50.com/2024/03/13/daniel-mouyal-signs-deal-at-roc-nation/
• https://hiphopsince1987.com/2024/music/equity-roc-nations-distribution-division-will-be-releasing-daniel-mouyals-music/
• https://hiphopsince1987.com/2023/music/genre-bending-maestro-daniel-mouyal-unveils-collaborative-extravaganza-in-new-album-house- of-g-d-featuring-project-pat-riff-raff-gucci-mane-camron-kool-g-rap-and-too-hort/ Djmooyall23 (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmooyall23: first and foremost, you must make the paid-editing disclosure as requested on your talk page, as your very next edit. Please note, this is a hard requirement, not an optional extra.
Secondly, it is pointless posting sources here, because in few days' time they will be archived, and no one reviewing the draft will know where to go looking for them. Cite them in the draft, please (after making your paid-editing disclosure).
And thirdly, you probably should change your user name, because it very much gives the misleading impression that you are Daniel Marc Mouyal, especially when writing about Daniel Marc Mouyal.
Speaking of which, do you have other accounts set up for writing about other clients? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Djmooyall23: I have a very strict policy of not rewarding undisclosed mercenaries by reviewing their sources or writing. Until you disclose, I'm not looking at any of your sources proffered here or your draft. We take (allegations of) paid editing dead seriously. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no scams involved at all, I have a long list of reputable magazine and newspaper coverages. -Daniel Mouyal Youalreadyknowrecords (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 9 May 2024 review of submission by AndreiPPa[edit]

I would like to create a nice and complete encyclopedic page on Wikipedia about Samir Buzatu, I have read the conditions of Wikipedia and I believe that Samir is an encyclopedic person: he works and is in charge of production designer of several Marvel films (which have a Wikipedia page and they also mention him), but when I create the page with the minimum information, I am denied creation because I am told that the sources I provided concern the film and not him: but if it is an important film and he is the production designer, and is mentioned in the cast by several newspapers also giving information, why can't he have a Wikipedia page? AndreiPPa (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AndreiPPa To merit a standalone article about Buzatu, he needs to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources- himself personally, not merely the things he works on. Sources need to tell what makes him important/significant/influential as a production designer- how he is either a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. Just the fact that he worked on a film that might merit an article is insufficient- we don't do notability by association. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 9 May 2024 review of submission by 24.191.217.79[edit]

Is there an editor who can help me revise this draft (or make suggestions) that would improve its chances of being accepted? 24.191.217.79 (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. You can ask at one or more of the projects listed on the draft talk page, if anyone there is interesting in chipping in, but the onus really is on the draft authors to create the draft.
This was declined for notability, which is demonstrated through sources. You need to find multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, to show notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 10[edit]

00:52, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Snigdhakm[edit]

The person is a notable person and has multiple reliable sources of his biography. This age is not a part of self promotion and vandalism. I and Mayukh Mukherjee are two separate person. He is not in any direct connection with me or the other editors who are editing about hm. Snigdhakm (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snigdhakm, IMDb is not a reliable source. See WP:IMDB. Amazon is a dubious source. See WP:AMAZON. Another Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. See WP:CIRCULAR. Your first two sentences are copied directly from Moviefone. That is a copyright violation, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Things written by Mukherjee do not contribute to notability. The GoldPoster source is a passing mention. The District Court source is a passing mention. Movie credits do not constitute significant coverage. You draft is poorly referenced and has significant problems. Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:14, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Tedolightnirvana[edit]

Why is my article declined? I've cited enough sources not less than 10 which are totally independent and reliable. Tedolightnirvana (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedolightnirvana: it has been declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely that the sources are insufficient for establishing notability, and the draft is written in a promotional manner.
Several of the sources don't work. The ones that do, are either interviews, things written by the subject, or passing mentions, none of which counts towards notability.
You've also not cited anything, you've merely listed some sources at the end. Articles on living people require comprehensive inline citations throughout. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:38, 10 May 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A[edit]

Then why Atlantic Records Russia 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you perhaps asking about  Courtesy link: Draft:Kuzzyy Music Records? ...an unreferenced mini-stub on an alleged record label founded yesterday – do you really need to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 10 May 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A[edit]

Return my article 2600:1700:1690:46B0:38EB:1894:A4C6:803A (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the rejection notice. I have restored it for you. —Wasell(T) 09:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is borderline-gibberish to me. Is it about a record label? A recording artist? A shop selling vinyls? It's impossible to get that from the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 10 May 2024 review of submission by CSharpStudentToo[edit]

Comment has been left saying that the references don't qualify when they've in fact been lifted from the Finnish Wikipedia article and have been found valid there: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyrki_%E2%80%9DSpider%E2%80%9D_H%C3%A4m%C3%A4l%C3%A4inen CSharpStudentToo (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSharpStudentToo: every language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. I know for a fact that the Finnish version has much less stringent referencing and notability requirements than we do here at the English-language one (which, in fairness, probably has the strictest of any).
This is a common problem in translating content from other languages to English: the sources often are insufficient to qualify for publication here, meaning that you need to go hunting for more and better sources to make sure they exist, before even starting to translate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. The article still mentions "Review waiting, please be patient.". Will there be a second opinion on the article or is it just plain rejected? Plenty of UK and international sources, which makes you think it would be valid for the English Wikipedia as well. CSharpStudentToo (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CSharpStudentToo: the draft (not yet 'article') has not been rejected, which would mean that it cannot be resubmitted; only declined, which means that it can be, once the decline reasons have been addressed. (And given that it has now been declined three times, that gives you the second, and even third, opinion.)
As I already said in a comment on the draft, "plenty of sources" is good, if they are of sufficient quality. Plenty of poor-quality sources doesn't help, and actually hinders.
I see nothing there that would make this person notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:MUSICBIO, so we're reliant on the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of both the subject and of each other.
One more thing: sources must be cited in a way that enables them to be reliably identified for verification. This means that offline sources must have full bibliographical information. Anything that is available online should ideally cite the online version, as this obviously makes it much easier for a global readership to access the source.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:41, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Huothak[edit]

I have an issue of my submission Articles for creation "Huot Hak". The reasons left by ToadetteEdit were: 1- submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources 2- submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage I would like to request to assist and double check on these issues. I am (Huot Hak) is the minister of Ministry of Inspection, Cambodia. In the references, they clearly shows I was appointed. If any reference you need, I will provide for you. This is the urgent case.

Regards, Huot Hak Huothak (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huothak Please be aware of the autobiography policy; while not forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. Wikipedia wants to know what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself.
Almost nothing in the draft is sourced; every substantive fact about a living person needs to have a source, per the Biographies of Living Persons policy. There is also much promotional language, "illustrious career"; "broadened his academic horizons", etc. Articles should be written very dry, without embellishment. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Huothak. Firstly, nothing on Wikipedia is urgent. Secondly, we really do discourage writing autobiographies about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY) and having a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
In order to show you merit a Wikipedia article, you must pass the WP:NPOLITICIAN criteria. You probably do meet that criteria as a senior Civil Servant, but the draft has lots of other problems too: it is full of promotional language (which is prohibited), and vast parts are unsourced (every statement in a biography must be sourced).
To resolve the issues in the draft you need to:
  1. Completely re-write it to comply with our strict neutrality policy.
  2. Cite every single statement, starting with your date of birth, to a published source. If you cannot find published sources, the statement must be removed.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that the photo of you appears to be an official government photo, but you claim that it is your own personal work, that you created it. If you were not the photographer, you cannot say that the photo is your personal work. I do not know what the laws are regarding copyright in Cambodia, and if images taken by your government are in the public domain. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Tvfilmpodcastuk[edit]

first time adding a page Tvfilmpodcastuk (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but your draft is completely unsourced. Please see referencing for beginners to learn how to add references for your information to the draft. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Gs6Kt1An7[edit]

Just now I was attempting to edit the draft titled Babu_Ezhumalai but wrongly clicked the submit button. My draft was submitted without any editing. I want to re-edit and resubmit before this article is reviewed. Kindly help me in this regard immediately. Gs6Kt1An7 (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gs6Kt1An7: I've simply undone your submission, which you can do yourself also, it requires no advanced tools or permissions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gs6Kt1An7 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Devendrasingh365[edit]

i am Devendra Singh. i have a website of king peedia that i provide history, culture, king, temple on our website. it is help for need person and they improve knowledge through our website.

I summit my website on your platform and i provide all current information for my website that user understand of my website. but my wiki page had been deleted.

I request to you that check my wiki page that i provide all information is correct. 

Devendrasingh365 (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Devendrasingh365, your draft is unreferenced and overtly promotional. It cannot possibly be accepted into the encyclopedia in its current form. Cullen328 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Devendrasingh365: your draft hasn't been deleted, although it soon will be. Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for your website, you'll need to find other ways to promote it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a blatant advert for your website and has no place on Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:53, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Chitranshuagarwal[edit]

Why my article not qualify instead of providing many news and site references Chitranshuagarwal (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link for proper display. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chitranshuagarwal: Refer to my /Decode subpage linked in my signature below ("critiques").
None of the sources you have that I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:58, 10 May 2024 review of submission by CProvat[edit]

PERMAS software is outcome from the University of Stuttgart-Germany, which was initially was developed by the team of the famous professor John Argyris, the pioneer of the Finite Element Method (FEM). In this sense, I strongly believe that it has to be a permanent record in Wikipedia. Personally, I am using it in my lectures at the University, and I confirm that I have not been paid to create this entry. I woud be glad if you could suggest me possible changes so as the entry becomes acceptable. Thanks! CProvat (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CProvat: the draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, so you will get feedback once a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
The main thing that makes a draft 'acceptable' is that it demonstrates notability. That arises in most cases, including this, solely from sources, which need to satisfy the WP:GNG guideline. This requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject.
On that last point, independence: in the case of scientific software such as this, relevant sources are likely to be scientific papers or textbooks, and they should not be authored by anyone involved in the software's development or distribution, or published by publishers affiliated with the university in question. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Jpgroppi[edit]

I see that my page has this comment: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. I am suppose to go to the talk page. The talk page does not help me to prove that this accusation is wrong. What should I do? Jpgroppi (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your user name gives the impression that you have a conflict of interest, why have you chosen that as a name? And still not remotely clear how they/you would pass WP:NARTIST.Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgroppi If the accusation is incorrect you may state that simply and truthfully on the draft's talk page. However, it is unimportant unless you can prove that he passes WP:NARTIST. Impossible to prove that? Then it will not be accepted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Xfmol[edit]

I'm trying to insert an infobox person using {{Infobox person/Wikidata | fetchwikidata=ALL}}, as it is sugested in the tutorials, but the box is not being automatically filled from Wikidata, eventhough a Wikidata element does exists with the same title as the article. In the draft edit page, under Tools menu, I'm not finding any link to Wikidata. Xfmol (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xfmol: The infobox is the least of your worries. One source, no matter how good it is, cannot support a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xfmol: I have added another source and also an info box, please find more sourced content to show how he passes WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help. Xfmol (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a draft editing page and I am just starting to write the article; of course the article will be far more extended and will have >10 references. I'm almost a begginer editor, I've already contributed to the catalan, spanish and french Wikipedias, but this is the first time I'm contributing to the english Wikipedia. Xfmol (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On en.wp, we don't see an infobox as necessary for an article or a draft. Sure it's a nice-to-have, but it doesn't really help move the needle when it comes to getting a draft accepted, and often can introduce other problems (infobox content generally needs sourced if the article doesn't already cover it or the content implicates WP:BLP). Focus on getting the article sourced and written first, then worry about the infobox once that is done. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 10 May 2024 review of submission by Vistopher[edit]

I believe my draft has been rejected due to a lack of sources. I would like to know how many sources I would need in order to have a sufficient amount of sources for my draft to be allowed to be published and if there isnt enough sources or articles about this person does that mean that he is not worthy of having a wikipedia page yet? This is the first Wikipedia article/draft ive made, ive updated several other articles before I had this acount but never made a full article/draft and would like to have it submitted if possible. Looking forward to hearing from you. Vistopher (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vistopher, your draft was only declined, not rejected. This means you still have the opportunity to improve and re-submit it.
Our rule of thumb is you should have a minimum of three sources that each meet these criteria: independent of Griffin and of each other (not interviews, PR pieces, from his racing team etc); give significant coverage (analysis, discussion, debate, commentary, etc); are from reliable places (not random blogs or social media).
If you can't find those sources, then perhaps it is too soon for there to be a Wikipedia article about him yet
Have a look at our notability criteria for sports people which explains what we're looking for.
Hope that makes sense, let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got a few more questions concerning the source.
Is FormulaScout.com a good source or not, Im pretty sure its an independant news site not linked to a team or anything similair, and am I allowed to use the same site as credit multiple times or is it required to use diffirent sites? And how do I check if they are credible sites or not? Thanks for answering my questions and assisting me in making this draft/article. Vistopher (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at FormulaScout and it looks like a reliable source to me: it has an editorial team, looks to be editorially independent, each article is written by a named editor, active social media, been around for a long time.
Identifying if a source is reliable or not can be difficult, but there's a useful essay here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_checklist.
You can re-use the same source if you are citing multiple things to it, or if it has different articles you want to cite. Qcne (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for answering my questions, Ill do my best to add credible sources to my article about Griffin Peebles. Thanks for the help! Vistopher (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 11[edit]

05:10, 11 May 2024 review of submission by FarisMuhtaseb[edit]

Where to start search for sufficient references and what if there is not enough to cover my article? FarisMuhtaseb (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FarisMuhtaseb: sounds like you've first written what you wanted, and are now trying to find sources that support what you've said. This is called WP:BACKWARD editing. What you should do is first find a few (3-5) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, summarise what they've said, cite each source against the information it has provided. This gives you the appropriate content, references, and proof of notability all in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And when I say "summarise what they've said", I mean in your own words, not by copypasting content verbatim. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Iarainn[edit]

Hello—I'm puzzled by why this draft has been rejected for a third time. Multiple secondary and reliable sources have been provided, including an SFX article focused specifically on the subject, in response to comments made in the first and second rejection. Her debut novel has its own Wikipedia entry, so I can't quite work out why the author herself is deemed not to qualify for one. Any guidance to help get this through would be appreciated, as I feel El-Arifi has brought a great deal to the fantasy genre and that contribution should be recognised. Iarainn (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iarainn A book can merit a Wikipedia article, but not its author, if it is the book that receives coverage in independent reliable sources and not the author themselves. Interviews do not contribute to notability, as that is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 11 May 2024 review of submission by ZDISK[edit]

Could you please provide specific details about how this page needs to be edited to conform to Wikipedia standards? I need to see how it reads like an essay. It summarizes and cites peer-reviewed scientific literature - there are no opinions in the piece unless one takes issue with the word "seminal." The last section describes two alternative models for the mechanism of polyspermy block, but this is an accurate summation of an unresolved and actively researched area. I am happy to continue to improve this page, but I need help understanding the problem. ZDISK (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters Wikipedia articles usually start with the title and a brief explanation of what makes it a notable topic, not a rambling general introduction like yours. Theroadislong (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and such a start (or 'lead' section) would normally also set the context, so that the reader knows straight away what the topic is and how it relates to others.
There exists already an article on polyspermy, which covers blocking mechanisms. Why would we need another article on polyspermy blocking in this particular species, specifically – is there something unique about it? If so, could that not be included in the African clawed frog article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 11 May 2024 review of submission by 103.197.204.25[edit]

help me 

103.197.204.25 (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to be more specific, what help do you require?
That said, this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage ("critiques" in my signature below).
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:48, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Snipertron12[edit]

I can't find any more sources for Picklenash Junior School. Snipertron12 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: then it probably means that school is not notable enough to justify an article. The vast majority of schools aren't, so that's pretty much the default position anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats mainly notable about the school is that its the only Primary school in Newent. And due to Newent being a small town, not many articles talk about Newent. Snipertron12 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a more specific definition of notability than what you're using, unfortunately. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid[edit]

The only sources that I have for this topic is some Tweets and the Bulletin Awards website. I already know that Twitter is unreliable. But I know I can't use the Bulletin Awards Website either. What should I do? Rincemermaid (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do until independent reliable sources provide sufficient coverage of this award. No amount of editing can confer notability. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:44, 11 May 2024 review of submission by 5.197.242.72[edit]

What kind of proof do they require? 5.197.242.72 (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Herosarm[edit]

This article has been repeatedly denied, but similar articles for other businesses are approved. There is not any superlative information or advertisement included and it is a factual article on a popular Canadian business. Herosarm (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. See other stuff exists. Each draft or article is judged on its own merits. It is a poor idea to use any random article as a model; use those that are classified as good articles. If you want to help us remove other inappropriate articles, please identify them so we can take action. We need the help.
Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. A Wikipedia article about a business nust summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. You only have two sources, one your own website, another a mere announcement of a routine business activity, nothing that goes into detail about what others say makes your business important/significant/influential as a business as they see it. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 11 May 2024 review of submission by Herosarm[edit]

I have updated the citations. There are several third party news outlets discussing this business. This is a notable business in Ontario Canada. Herosarm (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Herosarm: you say there are several news outlets covering this, yet your draft only cites one, and a very local one at that.
In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: And please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to your previous one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 12[edit]

01:37, 12 May 2024 review of submission by Vidyapati2024[edit]

Not sure what I need to do Vidyapati2024 (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vidyapati2024: what do you mean? You need to provide multiple (3+) sources that are independent and reliable and have provided significant coverage of this subject, like it says in the decline notice. The draft currently provides none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:23, 12 May 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener[edit]

Good day, regarding the sources and notability what off do I need to improve this article? RexScrivener (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener: this draft has been rejected as not notable. No amount of editing will magic notability out of thin air.
This is your third time here, in the space of only a few days, asking about this same thing, each time creating a new thread when you've been told to just add to the previous one. Please drop this matter now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:01, 12 May 2024 review of submission by 108.39.237.252[edit]

i would personally like to help this page, but would like to know what exactly the issues are with it 108.39.237.252 (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you not find something more worthwhile to do with your life? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No references, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:54, 12 May 2024 review of submission by Qyopy[edit]

I made many changes about my wikipedia page, please review it and tell me if i need to change anything else. Thank you. Qyopy (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "many changes" made zero improvement, the draft was rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made infobar, updated career section, mentioning that i have a 500 thousand streams song. Qyopy (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qyopy "Rejected" usually means an article will not be considered further. I have checked your recent changes and you still do not pass our notability threshold for musicians, therefore do not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Sorry. It is likely that further changes would be a waste of your time. Qcne (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can i do for my article be approved because im a highly searched artist on various platforms and i need to get a wikipedia page. Create a new article name or what? Qyopy (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qyopy I have reported you as a promotion-only account and you will soon be blocked from editing, and your existing articles deleted. Qcne (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah of course, but so many artists using wikipedia for promoting their shits, and writing short wikis, but when someone who’s doesn’t have that much audience and wants to promote/mention 1-2 songs on his “own” wikipedia page, then instantly get a ban and strike, and straight rip off from the platform. What a nice community. Have a nice life :) Qyopy (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qyopy: Just because an artist has an article doesn't mean they had (or still have) any control over its content, and we generally take a dim view at best at writing an article about oneself on Wikipedia. If you have hard evidence that an artist is using Wikipedia to promote themselves, please put that info on your user talk page so we can deal with it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked for promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


21:29, 12 May 2024 review of submission by Altberry65[edit]

Hoe do I add sources for approval Altberry65 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add internet articles, links and professional websites that affirm my credentials? Altberry65 (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Altberry65. (please don't create two topics, I've merged them together).
Writing a Wikipedia article is a really challenging task. Akin to performing in a concert when you've never played an instrument before!
Wikipedia is not a social media site but an online encyclopaedia of "notable" topics, using our special definition of notability. Please very carefully read all the advice given to you in the decline notice by @Robert_McClenon. It will answer all your questions, but, as writing an article is complex it may take some time to understand (as it would take time to learn how to play a musical instrument).
The only addition to the advice is that I would recommend the Visual Editor referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE which is a way to write articles and reference them correctly in an interface much like a modern word processor.
Hope that helps, let us know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:55, 12 May 2024 review of submission by Youalreadyknowrecords[edit]

I am Daniel Mouyal. I paid "djmooyall23" a.k.a. Samir $50 on fiverr.com and he's doing a decent job however I notice that there are errors he's incurring and that's ok, how do I actually create the page effectively and correctly. I have been featured on ample publications as well as radio and newspaper. Please help by giving very detailed instructions on how to correct. Youalreadyknowrecords (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Youalreadyknowrecords: All of your sources are unusable (we don't cite IMDb or Genius, and Apple Music/iTunes is hardly any better), and the draft is insufficiently sourced and would be even if the four sources cited were acceptable. All the sources your hired mercenary proffered above are also useless - Jerusalem Post was written in part by Mouyal, while ThisIs50 and Hip Hop Since 1987 are both routine coverage at best from outlets with a less-than-stellar editorial reputation. If these are the best sources you have, the answer is "you don't". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that, by the sound of it, you have a fundamentally wrong understanding of Wikipedia (like many many people).
Promotion of any kind (a.k.a. "telling the world about" something) is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is only interested in subjects that the world has already been told about, by reliable independent, commentators
If at some point Wikipedia has an article about you, it will not belong to you, it will not be controlled by you, it will not necessarily say what you want it to say, it may be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your associates, and it should be based almost entirely on what people wholly unconnected with you have chosen to publish about you, not on what you or your associates say or want to say.
Please read WP:an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 13[edit]

07:58, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Tomboy1977[edit]

Why my article is rejected though i submitted lot of citations and proofs Tomboy1977 (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomboy1977: your draft (not yet an 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. The majority of your sources are not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In parenthesis, @Tomboy1977, most of thr sources doesn't meet WP:RS. They are primary sources of YouTube interviews of the subject and in no way, proves notability. The welcome message on your talk page can also serve as help after reading, while following the blue links. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 13 May 2024 review of submission by PNKAT1993[edit]

sir i want published this PNKAT1993 (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PNKAT1993: this draft has been deleted as promotional. Please carefully read the messages posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @PNKAT1993 your draft has been rejected and deleted under WP:G11... twice. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what I am telling you. I tagged those pages because they are off from the goals of the encyclopaedia. You may not want to read the speedy deletion messages and follow the links. It's good to use the one by Deepfriedokra especially to this act of promotion. You are also a relatively new editor who can Chanel into cleaning up articles; till after learning about Wikipedia. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Zwedexx[edit]

The editor mentioned removing the Linkedin references. Are there others I should remove and should I be adding more references? Zwedexx (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zwedexx. Firstly you should format your references properly, check out the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE for details. Currently all your URLs are broken as they have a malformed character at the end due to the weird way you've referenced.
The sources themselves seem reliable enough. Make sure you include enough secondary independent ones that provide significant coverage in order to satisfy WP:NSPORTS. Qcne (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zwedexx, I have refilled your referwnves already and still can find database results which is meant for the external link section per MOS:EL. The article looks unique anyway but I will leave it for another editor or look at it again when I have less chance. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 13 May 2024 review of submission by KiwiiTV[edit]

My declined Wikipedia page Hello, I wrote my first wikipedia page today and it got declined. I just wanted to ask what I can do that it gets accepted next time. Have a great day! Kiwii KiwiiTV (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft Draft:ToxicTenshi has zero independent reliable sources and no indication of notability]? Theroadislong (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. . Find several reliable, indepedent, sources that discuss the subject in detail. Ignore anything that does not meet all the criteria in golden rule.
  2. . If you have at least three such sources, then forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what the sources say. (If you haven't, give up, as this is not a suitable subject for Wikipedia).
ColinFine (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Projectmix[edit]

Hi,

Any advice about creating an article about our company? Projectmix (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Projectmix. Yeah: please do not. Wikipedia is not a business directory but an online encyclopedia of notable topics.
I would recommend reading Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also marked your draft as WP:SPAM and it will soon be deleted. Qcne (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Steffanhalvorsenekholt[edit]

I do not understand why Made With Vue.js is not considered an independent source, and I am not sure I get it right about the links in message body. Are we not allowed to reference to internal wiki pages, as I have removed all external links and also links to the official site.

I only have two links now which is references to Made With Vue.js and Product Hunt, which should be considered reliable sources as it is serious companies and that how run their business for many years. Anyways, if there is nothing we can do to get the page published, you can just delete it.

Kind regards, Steffan Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steffanhalvorsenekholt I've requested deletion of your draft. In addition, please read the warnings given to you on your talk page and disclose your paid editing. Thank you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is unfair, I added a disclosure message in the Talk session as required from the very beginning. I have read the warnings, thank you. Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ref: Wikipedia:Teahouse#c-Michael D. Turnbull-20240513112900-Theroadislong-20240513110600 Steffanhalvorsenekholt (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not disclosed this on your user page. Please do so. Not doing so is, in your words, unfair. Theroadislong has told you what to do and how to do it. Please just do it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Reqman[edit]

Hi. I certainly need help. Finding what I thought would be a simple fix frustrating.

I was looking to add an article concerning a professional engineering organisation as previous pages have been removed. I have had several submissions declined, fair enough, one usefully pointed out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)

I had read the above first but struggled to see how this guidance was met by similar organisations that do have a page (refer to Wiki list on TALK). While I get the point just because one organisation is listed it doesn't mean another one should, for example both being licensed by a Government body to register persons in the engineering profession. If I search on the internet or databases for those other professional bodies that are listed I get even less information that I have included in the citation citations. So how did they manage to meet the above criteria? Even less citations than mine. Some have none. I argument here that omission here creates a bias in results returned by Wikipedia.

I added information to TALK but so far no discussion forthcoming.

Some guidance on meeting the Notability criteria for a professional body would be much appreciated. If the history and activities section are removed could the page be added as a stub?

Thanks. Reqman (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reqman: you have pretty much answered your own question. It is tempting to think that if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS then more such stuff can be created, but this clearly makes no sense: just because there are problems among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia does not mean we should create more such problems. (And if you have identified articles that do not meet referencing or notability etc. requirements, you're welcome to improvement, or tag them for improvement using maintenance templates, or to commence deletion proceedings where improvement is not possible.)
To answer your other question about notability criteria for professional bodies, these are the same as for any other organisation, and are laid out in WP:ORG. In other words, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the organisation in question, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent (of the source, and of each other). HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for the prompt response DoubleGrazing. Understood. I get the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point but can see at least 10 pages that do not meet the criteria, and struggle to see many would have significant coverage with independence of the type indicated. But I will leave them as they provide users with accessible information. It would be unfair for example to have such organisations page removed. It is strange but these are organisations who members help make the world tick over yet would be otherwise invisible here and no as straight forward to add in as content on other pages.
I was just trying to help out given people have commented to me on the omission so I will stand down. Still I have learned something from the experience. Reqman (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reqman OTHERSTUFFEXISTS just means that each draft or article is judged on its own merits, and not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be problematic, which you would be unaware of. If you want to help us identify and address other problematic articles- of which there are many amongst the nearly 7 million that we have and only a few thousand editors to maintain them- please tell what these other articles you have seen are. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have gotten community review. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or featured articles, which have undergone the same review multiple times over, with all but the first held to more rigourous standards than good-class. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Reqman. I understand your concern about substandard articles getting deleted because they might be "useful"; but usefulness is not part of Wikipedia's purposes. If those articles can be changed to meet Wikipedia's criteria (in most cases, finding suitable independent sources), then they should be; if they can't then they should be deleted. Unfortunately, not many volunteers are willing to spend much time going over tens of thousands of old articles doing this. ColinFine (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Kastark[edit]

Hello! The first version of my draft was declined with a reference to WP:CORPDEPTH. I've since updated the draft to include more (and better) references, but since the policy seems to leave some room for judgement I wanted to get another person's perspective on whether the new references are adequate before I resubmit. Thank you in advance for any help! Kastark (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kastark: we don't really do pre-reviews here at the help desk. If you feel that you have addressed the reason(s) for the earlier decline, you can resubmit and will then get feedback when a reviewer get a chance to assess the draft. If you have specific questions, you may of course ask those here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thank you. Kastark (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Tora08[edit]

Im sorry. im not good at this, please deleat my artical. Have a nice day. :) Tora08 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article tagged for speedy deletion by Qcne. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Saji Edavazhikkal[edit]

don't think my draft was reviewed fairly considering some of the other articles references. Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saji Edavazhikkal: it was certainly correctly declined for lack of notability. On what basis are you alleging unfair treatment, exactly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything unfair about it. Much of your draft is unsourced, at least with in line citations(see WP:REFB), and the citations you have seem to just be routine coverage. The fact that he is a bishop might merit him an article, but any article about him must summarize sources with significant coverage that describe what those sources see as important/significant/influential about him. Is he known for holding particular theological or social views? Does he have certain policies? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer says the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published" however this is not true as most of references show significant coverage the subject (the bishop) being published, also the reviewer says the sources are not "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" I think this is grossly unfair as all of the sources are independent of the Bishop and some are also independent secular newspapers that are both independent of the Bishop and the Church.You also say that much of my draft is "unsourced, at least with in line citations." however, if you look at the citations at the end of the paragraph you can see the things mentioned in the paragraph there. Not all bishops hold any "particular theological or social views" personally but are given articles due to the significance of their office. Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saji Edavazhikkal
Source analysis:-
  1. Directly associated with the subject = not independent
  2. Indirectly associated with the subject (the Catholic Church) = not independent
  3. Appointment news = not significant coverage; probably also not independent (press release?)
  4. As #2
  5. As #3
  6. As #2
  7. As #2 and #3
  8. As #3
  9. As #2 and #3
I repeat, this draft was correctly declined, and if you wish to continue claiming unfair treatment you need to start coming up with actual evidence to support that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles of similar nature (Bishops) have a similar, less or no references and most of their references are not independent like you deem this to be, If you think this is not worthy then fine, however you would not delete many articles of a similar nature that are poorly referenced or have no reference at all... Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See other stuff exists we certainly WOULD delete any articles which were poorly referenced or have no reference at all. Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saji Edavazhikkal: Bold assertion. Got any specific articles you want to point us to? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Koorilos Mathew Moolakkatt Joshua Ignathios Abraham Julios Thomas Chakiath Paul Alappatt Anthonios Yaqu'b Yakob Elias Baker Ninan Fenn Saji Edavazhikkal (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles on Koorilos, Moolakkatt, Julios, Yaqu'b, Elias, and Fenn will go to AfD as soon as I verify there's no sources that possibly exist for them; the rest have enough sources that a deeper look would be needed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 13 May 2024 review of submission by 173.63.169.98[edit]

accept it now I will make it better 173.63.169.98 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, so it will not be considered further. You have no independent sources that discuss the use or history of this flag. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 13 May 2024 review of submission by 71.167.7.207[edit]

I am confused as to why this article would be declined. Lisa Davis has held positions in the International Criminal Court and the State Department and is a law professor at CUNY Law. I have found numerous other instances of people in these positionshaving Wikipedia pages, often with fewer third party citations than this one. As to the quality of the citation sources, they include the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, Buzzfeed News, and others - all of which are independent of the subject of the article. Are you suggesting these sources are not verifiable? 71.167.7.207 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists; each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, and limited volunteer time to address them. If you want to tell us what these other articles are, we can take action. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
What are the three best sources that provide significant coverage of Lisa Davis? 331dot (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques"):
We do not judge sources solely by who puts the source out; we have to also take the content of the source - i.e. what the source actually says - into account as well. Not every article an outlet puts out on a subject is going to be of any use. On a related note, have you had a look at WP:NPROF? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 13 May 2024 review of submission by Altberry65[edit]

What am I doing wrong? And how can I change to biography? Altberry65 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altberry65: You need much better sources that discuss Berry at length. The Allmusic cite here is unusable (too sparse), and we don't like citing Allmusic for biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 14[edit]

01:35, 14 May 2024 review of submission by TeamChicas[edit]

I need help trying to get our draft submitted and not declined. TeamChicas (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TeamChicas. Team accounts are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. Your draft reads much more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TeamChicas: If the username is shared, everyone using it needs to get a new account that unambiguously represents, and is used by, a single person. If it is not shared, the username needs to be changed to one that unambiguously represents a single person. (see WP:U).
As to the draft itself, we do not accept essays; if you are doing this as part of a class project, please contact your instructor and tell them to get in touch with WikiEd. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what indepedent reliable sources have published on a subject, nothing more. It should contain absolutely no argumentation or conclusion, except for summarising the argumentation or conclusions from a single source. (Even comparing arguments or conclusions from different sources is regarded as synthesis and forbidden). An article may say that different sources come to different conclusions, but it may not make any attempt to choose between them or reconcile them. ColinFine (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:57, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Yesiwant2no[edit]

Hi,

I created a wikipage for a friend and former coworker. It was originally rejected in January citing insufficient sources. I have since added several additional sources to show the work of the person profiled. Is there anything else I need to do to get this published?

Thanks! Paul Yesiwant2no (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yesiwant2no: firstly, you clearly have a conflict of interest in writing about your friend. This needs to be disclosed. I've posted instructions on your talk page.
The subject appears to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC, but the draft cannot yet be accepted. The biggest problem with it is that most of the information is unreferenced. For privacy etc. reasons, articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements. Every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported with inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed.
IMO this would also benefit from some further editing. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, articles must be written in a precise and concise manner, using factual language and neutral point of view. I would remove all the family photos and the like, as well as removing everything that cannot be supported by a reliable source, as already mentioned.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Hello991[edit]

Can you hightlight the statements that dont have any reliable source? And which sources should be revised? Hello991 (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello991. Vaste swathes of your draft are unreferenced, violating the core content policy Verifiability. It is easy to see. Paragraph after paragraph and dish after dish without a reference. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:17, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Erin1313[edit]

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to seek your assistance regarding an article I have been working on for Wikipedia. Despite my efforts, the article has been repeatedly declined due to concerns about notability and inadequate citations.

I am encountering difficulties in demonstrating this through the references and citations I have provided.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the following points: 

            1.Notability: Could you provide advice on how to better highlight the notability of the subject? Are there specific types of sources or particular aspects that I should focus on to strengthen the article's case for notability?
             2.Citations: I am unsure if I am using the appropriate sources and correctly formatting the citations. Could you suggest any reliable sources that are acceptable by Wikipedia standards, and perhaps provide examples of properly formatted citations?

If there are more suitable references or if there are any key sources I might have missed, your recommendations would be invaluable.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I am eager to improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. I look forward to your feedback and any suggestions you may have.

Best regards, Erin Simpson Erin1313 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erin1313: firstly, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Secondly, you do know that you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, right?
That said, and FWIW, in answer to your questions:
  1. For notability, we need to see multiple sources meeting every aspect of the WP:GNG guideline.
  2. Yes, your citations are correctly formatted. There just aren't enough of them to properly support the contents.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Thank you for your response! I was just wondering if I could still submit another entry to Wikipedia after gathering more extensive sources? Erin1313 (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erin1313: if there is evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may ask that to be taken into account, in which case you should make your appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erin1313 Rejection typically means the end of the road for the topic. If something fundamentally changed about it, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. Remember, as DoubleGrazing said, ideally you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, please review the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Greg Cesear[edit]

There was a title error with the original submission. Original: Improvisation of the Shepherd's Chameleon; corrected to: Improvisation or the Shepherd's Chameleon. One was declined to consider the other in review, however it looks like both have been deleted. Should I resubmit? Greg Cesear (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greg Cesear: not sure what you mean – what has been deleted? At least Draft:Improvisation or the Shepherd's Chameleon is still there. And pending review, so doesn't need to be resubmitted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I did make an edit which may help with the pending review (regarding a Wikipedia source reference). Greg Cesear (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Qcne[edit]

Would be useful to get second eyes on Draft:International_Journal_of_Science_Annals as I have not reviewed many drafts on journals. The WP:NJOURNALS essay is a little unclear, and the current references are all secondary database entries which I am not sure proves notability under criterion #1 and #2.

Also the author accused me of potential discrimination in my decline of this draft, so I just wanted to ensure I haven't made a gross error here. Qcne (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your comments and recommendations (Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)) and given a substantive response. My answers are based on your questions and supported by facts. There is nothing offensive or threatening about my response. My reply is written in strict official form. If you find my recommendation “not to discredit the work of other conscientious reviewers and editors on Wikipedia” a bad tone, then I have nothing more to say to you Yurii Melnyk (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The creating editor User:Yurii Melnyk is also an editor of the journal. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the Editor-in-Chief of International Journal of Education and Science, International Journal of Science Annals. There are no financial reward for Editors of the IJES, IJSA. These positions are purely voluntary. Absolutely all the contributions for Wikipedia I have made, or will make in the future, are made on a selfless basis and in accordance with the recommendations of Wikipedia. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits in Wikipedia. Yurii Melnyk (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure of the notability, there are clear other issues with the current draft that justify a decline (MOS, references, Promo). As for the accusation, that's sadly not uncommon for PAID/COI editors. Nobody (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "may be considered discriminatory" remark hints at a legal threat, and I would advise the user not to go any further down that path. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yurii Melnyk Please let us just look at first principles. While I have not checked all the references, all those which I have checked show the simple fact that it exists, not that it has inherent notability. On the basis that

"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."

I would have pushed it back to you as lacking verifiable notability as presented for review. I think any discussion should be about the draft and what needs to be done assuming it can achieve acceptance. I suggest we leave any emotions at the door and deal with the work. Arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin uses energy that woudl be better deployed editing the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Shepreth[edit]

I don't know how to resolve your rejection. How do I find/add required citations Shepreth (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shepreth: the draft is entirely unreferenced. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:V for an explanation of why this matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nenad_Vorih[edit]

Hello. I edited this text and cannot figure out why the references present so weird. I would also like any feedback on the text/format/etc prior to resubmitting. I appreciate whoever takes the time to take a look and reply :) Thanks so much! MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MorriconeEnnio please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE with care 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thanks:) I read both pages carefully and made changes. I am curious as to whether you feel there is a verifiability issue with any of the text or references. I included multiple sources for most statements in the text and all of the sources are published.Let me know whether in your opinion there are any outstanding issues.
Thanks again!
Draft:Nenad Vorih MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also i have copies of all of the material i found in research and used as my references. i took photos. i understand many are not published online but that is not a criteria for credibility according to wikipedia policy. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MorriconeEnnio You have created an exceptionally complex reference scheme for a small, simple article. It does not welcome the reader in. Readers need to be able to check citations with ease. Since I found it difficult I make no comment upon verification nor upon notability 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The reference scheme being used is more suited for citing a full bibliography, not individual news articles (where Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once would suffice). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
three of the sources are bibliographies...two are included in books. one was in an art journal...the rest were more news type articles MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Bibliography" as in "The article has a dedicated bibliography section and (almost) all the references are to books in that bibliography". As a rule, bibliography sections aren't generally used unless there's a critical mass of books being cited and they need to be referenced multiple times each. For news articles and minimal book cites, the standard reference method will do. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Thanks. I also thought it was overkill. The article was refused however respectively for notability and verification. First notability so I added additional references. Then verifiability so I added even more references. I guess i'll resubmit and see what happens. I did not get feedback from the second editor regarding his basis of verifiability. The first issue of notability i presume is resolved. MorriconeEnnio (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, 14 May 2024 review of submission by ImVeryBiasedSometimes[edit]

How do I delete it? ImVeryBiasedSometimes (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImVeryBiasedSometimes It has been deleted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Thanks, man! ImVeryBiasedSometimes (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:55, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Rincemermaid[edit]

Will the reviewer be able to see the edits that I made to this page? Rincemermaid (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is submitted and pending. The reviewer will see the draft as it is now. You are welcome to make further edits as well. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will be adding more information soon. Once I'm able to find the rest of the Fidos Award winners and nominees from over the years. Rincemermaid (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rincemermaid. Adding more winners and nominees will not make one iota of difference to whether the draft is accepted or not. In fact any work at all that you do on the draft other than finding several sources that meet the triple criteria in WP:42 will be a complete waste of your time.
Please read notability again. ColinFine (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 14 May 2024 review of submission by Californiawriter[edit]

Article creation decline despite credible sources Hello, My article was declined yet I met the criteria for multiple published sources that are: 

-in-depth (I cited New York Times article about the subject, TIME,

-reliable (I cited a case study by the Resource Innovation Institute and the USDA) -secondary (most all sources are secondary) -strictly independent of the subject (I cited a podcast with Dr. Temple Grandin, a feature by CBS Morning Show) 

Californiawriter (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link Draft:Vertical Harvest Farms. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Californiawriter Have you asked the declining reviewer to elaborate? All reviewers must be able to explain their reviews and so so willingly 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Californiawriter: Let's have a looksee at your sources, and see how much of them are about the company. Refer to my /Decode page (linked in my signature as "critiques").
This looks like a case of the chaff choking the wheat. Get rid of the bad sources and any content sourced entirely to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


May 15[edit]

00:04, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Altberry65[edit]

I've edited my draft and curious about if it's more appropriate for submission? Altberry65 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The issues raised by the reviewers remain. 331dot (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altberry65: The issues I raised last time have not been addressed. Continuing to submit a draft without making any effort to address reviewers' concerns will eventually lead to the draft being rejected. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Altberry65 also see WP:AUTO and WP:ABOUTME. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:02, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Jampowl[edit]

Hi! Can I ask what was lacking in the draft I just made, and how can I make it more neutral? I've also removed the "advertising" sound from my previous draft. Thanks! Jampowl (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jampowl! The first thing that caught my eye was your sources. They do not appear to meet the golden rule: articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. All three criteria must generally be met in a single source, which I do not think you have just yet.
1 The Flame is a UST publication; not independent.
2, 3, 4 are from the main UST site, so not independent.
5 The Varsitarian is also a UST publication, and not independent.
6, 7, 8, 9 are also from the main UST site, and not independent.
It would be a good idea to look for articles in newspapers, magazines, online, etc - there may even be chapters in books written about UST since it is so old.
I also notice that the College is part of a larger organization (UST) that has its own article already. You will need to find sources that are specifically about the College of Information and Computing Sciences, not just about UST, because you must demonstrate that the College is notable by itself and not only because it is part of UST. If there are not enough reliable sources to show this, you may want to consider adding any new information you have found (from reliable, independent sources!) to the main UST article instead. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:31, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Pengfeichen403[edit]

I have added references to the draft I submitted, why does it still show no reliable sources? Pengfeichen403 (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pengfeichen403: Speaking as someone who can't even assess your sources (incompetent), the text strikes me as written for an audience that's already significantly read into the scientific field in question. Wikipedia's audience is Joe Blow from San Antonio, not necessarily those who're already very familiar with any given topic area. It also reads promotionally, which doesn't help. Regardless of the sourcing, the draft would need to be rewritten significantly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 15 May 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:1000:7200:25C3:3866:4223:AC31[edit]

how to post 2603:8000:1000:7200:25C3:3866:4223:AC31 (talk) 03:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. In addition, if the draft is about yourself, don't. See WP:AUTO. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite IMDb, https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/06/9846920/wearing-perfume-at-home-quarantine-psychology is useless for notability (wrong subject), and https://fashionista.com/2020/03/beauty-salon-hair-nails-appointment-pandemic is useless for notability (too sparse). We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Hwang news/scholarly sources that discuss her at length, are written by identifiable authors, and have undergone rigourous editorial processes and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:27, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Janand12333[edit]

I have submitted a draft article 7 days ago. I haven't received any notification accepting or rejecting the said article. Kindly help me as to what would have gone wrong. Janand12333 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janand12333: you seem to have created two copies (why?), of which Draft:Anand Ingale is awaiting review, and User:Janand12333/sandbox has been declined as a duplicate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see the message at the top of the draft: Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. Nothing's gone wrong; drafts are manually reviewed by volunteers, and a 7-day turnaround is not guaranteed. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:33, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Grabup[edit]

The draft was submitted 96 days ago and has not received any responses other than comments (also by me). The Hoichoi article was deleted by AfD on 9 April 2023, initiated by @Lordofhunter, and closed by @Seraphimblade:. There was a big discussion that happened last year on the AfD; the majority of the editors said it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Another point is that no new articles were cited; all these citations in the draft were also available at the time of the previous discussion.

The article has now been created by @Akashekhar, an employee of the company, as he also mentioned on the Talk page. Pinging users who commented on the draft; Cl3phact0, Xoak. Also, ping other users who voted in the last AfD, Toddy1, TimothyBlue, HighKing, Oaktree_b.

My questions

  • What is your opinion on this draft?
  • Should it be accepted, deleted, or declined?
GrabUp - Talk 07:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup, As far as notability is concerned, to me, the subject meets notability. Since the last AFD, there's been a good deal of recent coverage of this platform. Even while it was on AFD, I felt it could have been kept if someone introduced some better sources. Note that sources exist in Bengali language as well.
Re the draft, it seems okay-ish, with some minor copy edits it'd be good to go. X (talk) 08:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While checking the AfD I found some experieced editors voted Keep. GrabUp - Talk 08:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only major concern I had when looked at the Draft was the missing COI declaration. This seems to be sorted (though needs a bit tidying). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sourcing is still a concern. The Business Line article is unsigned, The Financial Express is fine, Mint is fine but rather brief coverage, the Telegraph is a staff report of the newspaper (basically unsigned), Variety is fine but also very brief. So one good source, the other I'd count for about half a source... The unsigned articles are typical of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I still don't see extensive coverage in RS, and the COI is a concern. I don't think the draft is quite ready for publication. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed response. GrabUp - Talk 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grabup notability is still not met. We are again in the same loop as the last year. Please read the last AFD, and add new sources which are not related to launches and announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To emphasise this, I will assess your sources. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques").
None of your sources that I could assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:53, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Tanhasahu[edit]

I need assistence from fellow editors. I have submitted this page for "Articles for creation" and the submission got declined. I need some assistence with the sources used in this draft. Can anyone please let me me which are the non-reliable sources in this draft? It will help me to develop better understanding about the RS and to improve Wikipedia content. I have also added some new sources which are shown reliable on WP:RPS like INC, Bloomberg, Venture Beat, Fortune, Sydney Morning Herald. Also, I want to know that do I have a list or URL to check reliability of the sources which are not mentioned at WP:RPS. Thank you. Tanhasahu (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tanhasahu: this draft wasn't declined for non-reliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability. Notability requires sources that are reliable, yes, but they also must be entirely independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject. See WP:GNG for more info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoubleGrazing, I understand it. I have checked most of the sources used in the draft are reliable, independent of the subject and cover the subject significantly. I believe it meets WP:GNG. But, still unable to understand the review process clearly. Sometimes, it seems biased and unclear. Tanhasahu (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tanhasahu You have done a good job of summarizing the routine business activities of the company and documenting what it does. The thing is, that's not what we are looking for. We are primarily looking for a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company. That is coverage which goes beyond merely telling about the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about this company- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
I think you are referring to WP:RSP and not WP:RPS. RSP is a list of sources whose reliability is commonly discussed, it isn't meant as a list of acceptable (and not) sources. Reliable sources are those that have a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and journalistic standards(i.e. they don't just make stuff up). If you aren't sure if a source has those qualities, you may discuss it at WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the three(and only three, please) best sources that you have that provide significant coverage of this company? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey 331dot, I think this statesman article, Bizjournal, Bloomberg, are good sources that talks about company details in depth like founding details, key persons, company services, acquisition, and other details related to the company. Also, this | Independent news article is also reliable and also some other passing mention sources like [1], Morning Herald, Beat. I know, I'm new and can make mistakes to review the reliability of the provided sources that's why I have asked from the reviewer GSS on my talk page message but I got no response, this seems like biting the new editors without telling them where they're wrong. Every experienced person is newbie one day. So, I asked here at help desk so I can also contribute to Wikipedia with right edits. Don't take me wrong here, I am curious about the better and reliable sourcing on Wikipedia. And thanks for taking your time to be here to help the newbie editors like me. Tanhasahu (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those links do not work; the Bizjournal sources just documents a routine business activity; personnel changes are a routine matter. (it may say more, but it is paywalled and I can't read it, paywalled sources may be used, I just can't examine it) 331dot (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the dead links. Readded the correct links here for your check: [2], [3] Tanhasahu (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both routine business activities, this doesn't establish notability as defined as WP:ORG. Specifically, see WP:ORGTRIV. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted with thanks. But, how will differentiate the routine business activity and a geniune news article? Is there anything special that indicate us? I have seen hundrends of company pages with such news articles. It really hard to differentiate the organic news article and routine business activity. Tanhasahu (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are likely many inappropriate articles about businesses that we just haven't gotten around to addressing yet. Articles like Microsoft or Ford Motor Company don't just tell of the activities of the company, they go into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about those companies. Microsoft has 70% market share and has been highly influential in the technology field. Ford is known for pioneering the assembly line and its economic influence. Those are extreme examples, but the point here is any article about a company must describe what sources say is notable about it. That doesn't normally include things like acquisitions of competitors/businesses in related fields- unless some sort of widely reported record is involved, or extensive legal action is triggered, something like that. Just telling what the company does is not enough to sustain an article. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provided information is easy to understand and I appreciate it. Thank you for your time. One more question, does the same thing apply for the BLP articles? Tanhasahu (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions do not establish notability- the coverage must be significant. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:15, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Pupujoy[edit]

I dont know what references to add Pupujoy (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pupujoy: just because this mall exists doesn't mean it should be included in a global encyclopaedia; for that, it needs to be notable. Notability means that multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, etc.) have written about it at length. Those are the sources you should be summarising, and then citing as references. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 15 May 2024 review of submission by WhiteCliffsNative[edit]

I need help making this page work, eventually i am doing interviews with blogs and magazines that i can site, then i can back fill data on myself as an artist as my own wiki page that i can link to this page and vice versa WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WhiteCliffsNative. I am very sorry to say but your album does not merit a Wikipedia article. Only musicians who meet our strict notability criteria may merit an article.
If, some time in the future, you are written extensively by reputable music journalists a volunteer editor might write an article about you.
In any case, your draft was written in a completely inappropriate way for Wikipedia. It is prohibited to promote on Wikipedia, which is why I have marked it for deletion.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand that reasoning, and if i happen to fulfil those things in the future I will reach out, and hope that I can fit within the appropriate parameters, anyway thanks for letting me understand the criteria, and all the best, Paul WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - feel free to come back if you think you merit an article. It may be worth reading WP:TOOSOON too.
Good luck with your music career. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those sentiments, much appreciated and i will use that link as a guide and basically as a soft of goal. Thanks for your time and effort, Paul WhiteCliffsNative (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:58, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Randomuser335S[edit]

I've never done a successful citation attempt on my own before on a wikipedia article. Would like some help with my article, but placeholder citations containing the sources where I intend to place them have been inserted Randomuser335S (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randomuser335S Please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. If you need handholding after reading and understanding these may I suggest WP:TEAHOUSE will give yiu good results? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just revised the page's citation issues, and now currently awaiting its resubmission. Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Randomuser335S (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 15 May 2024 review of submission by Macrae.xmyint6418[edit]

this is for my friend. other people with less profile information are up on wikipedia. why is this rejected? Macrae.xmyint6418 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Macrae.xmyint6418
  1. It's written completely inappropriately for a neutral online encyclopaedia. We prohibit promotion of any kind.
  2. It's clearly been written by ChatGPT.
  3. It has no reliable independent sources to speak of.
Please, do go ahead and link "other people with less profile information are up on wikipedia" and I will take appropriate action.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 15 May 2024 review of submission by DeadSanz[edit]

Hello! I'm trying to create a page about one of my favorite photographers all time. I don't believe I infringed on anything from a copyright perspective, but was creating this draft prior to going into any of the numerous articles that have been written about him. DeadSanz (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see much of a copyvio, but it was thoroughly promotional. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1224027151"