Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


August 5

[edit]

13:50, 5 August 2024 review of submission by 0ctopusKn1ght

[edit]

I am attempting to create a new article, but I am struggling with how to place citations into the Infobox school template. 0ctopusKn1ght (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Zeus678

[edit]

Hello, It would be much appreciated if you could help me with this draft submission. I've tried to include the most important secondary sources I could find regarding the topic - they're all either interviews or news stories that relate to the company. All the sources are mainstream heavy metal publications which are reliable and are not self-published press releases or otherwise.

This is an important record label/publisher in the heavy metal world. Similar Wikipedia pages already exist for similar companies (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Season_of_Mist, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Feral_House, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bazillion_Points) - and they arguably have less reliable secondary sources.

Any help or pointers would be much appreciated. Thanks! Zeus678 (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeus678: In order for a company to be eligible for an article on Wikipedia, they must meet the notability guidelines for companies. That boils down to having significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. The references in your draft do not show that those guidelines are met.
You need coverage about the company in independent, reliable sources. C F A 💬 20:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Phiestine

[edit]

My page was recently declined after submission. I would like to know in which areas the sources can be improved because I cited many reliable sources. Phiestine (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phiestine: You cannot just slap sources on the end of a paragraph. You need to be citing sources at the spot of the claim, and anything that your sources cannot explicitly support MUST be removed. You have a lot of unsourced content here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Juan Antonio Godoy

[edit]

Hello, dates I gave and everything can be checked on the instagram and Facebook profile, from the artists, pictures from events and music discography in every store in the planet. ¿What is wrong? Juan Antonio Godoy (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juan Antonio Godoy: We can't cite Instagram, Facebook, or any other social media website (no editorial oversight), and anything from the subject themselves is useless for notability and biographical claims (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok now you can check all pages with info about Martin Strauts verified from another people, Juan Antonio Godoy (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Juan Antonio Godoy: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources that I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Dmrichards26

[edit]

I've recently started a draft for a local credit union, but as I work to submit it to send to the article space, I'm getting declined.

I've tried looking at other comparable organizations in the List of credit unions in the United States, including those that are objectively less notable, and I struggle to see what their articles have that this one does not. For example, this article.

Would certainly appreciate any advise on how I can work to demonstrate notability for this organization! 

Dmrichards26 (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmrichards26: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of other, tangentially-related, articles to argue for your own. Anything from the subject themselves is useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jéské - Thanks for the reply! My understanding from reading Wikipedia's pages on primary sources was that they are acceptable for limited use, but as you noted, they are useless for notability. I thought by including numerous secondary sources, I was meeting the notability requirements, and just adding limited additional background through the primary sources.
Are you saying that the primary sources almost count as a negative towards the article, not a neutral, and I should remove them? Dmrichards26 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmrichards26: That is exactly what I am saying. I would also have a close look at WP:CORPDEPTH and have another look at your sources after doing so. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 5 August 2024 review of submission by Juan Antonio Godoy

[edit]

Please can you review all the new references? Juan Antonio Godoy (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been rejected, and will not be looked at again.
You have not, as far as I can see, got a single independent source.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 6

[edit]

05:12, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Dogliepop

[edit]

I used a reputable sources to cite the draft. Such as dawn news.In case only one reliable reference is enough to be inclusion of article on wikipedia. please explain soi can do on you suggestion,you suggestion matters for me. Dogliepop (talk) 05:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogliepop: the subject is not notable, time to drop it and move on. And blocked users aren't allowed to edit under any user name, or logged-out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dogliepop: One source is not enough, and the cites to various useless sources (Wikidata, Google, Discogs, Vasya, YouTube, VeryHappyBirthday, Bandcamp, Amazon, Spotify) would kill the draft even if one source were good. Your Dawn News source doesn't even mention Jaum at all; we do have to actually read the sources in order to properly assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Ariyamettakula

[edit]

Edit typo requested. Ariyamettakula (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariyamettakula: pardon? We don't provide copy editing services here at the help desk, in case that's what you meant. I will decline your draft, though, as it's completely unreferenced, among other problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Alexmargate

[edit]

Hello, The article was created without 'advertising' in mind. I edited it based on similar organisations, and now, after working on it all day, I find it has been completely deleted. Alexmargate (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexmargate First, if you are associated with this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID(note that "paid editing" includes employment or any form of compensation, even if it isn't money).
It is a poor idea to use any random article as a model, as those too could be inappropriate and you would be unaware of that as a new user. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inapprpriate articles to exist, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are considered good articles, which have received community vetting. If you want to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify the ones you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
Regarding your draft, Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles about organizations must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 331dot,
Thank you for your feedback regarding my draft article on the Tracey Emin Foundation. I would like to clarify that I am not associated with the foundation. My intention was to contribute to Wikipedia with accurate and neutral information based on reliable and respected sources, such as well-known art publications and leading UK newspapers, excluding tabloids.
I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and would like the opportunity to revise and improve the article. Could the draft be returned to my drafts space rather than being deleted completely? This would allow me to address any issues and ensure the content meets the necessary standards for notability and reliability. Alexmargate (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexmargate You didn't pick this topic at random to edit about. How did you come to edit about it?
The original draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. I can view it as an admin, and I agree that it was. There is nothing there worth salvaging that could become part of an article. If you want to try again, you should start fresh. We usually recommend that new editors not dive right in to creating new articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that they start out editing existing articles, to gain experience and knowledge. Using the new user tutorial helps people as well.
Your sources were just documentation of the existence of the Foundation, and annoucements of its activities- not significant coverage that goes into detail about what the sources/sources see as important/significant/influential about the Foundation- how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Please review the definition carefully. What are the three best sources that you have that provide significant coverage of this organization? 331dot (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Yevvvah

[edit]

Hi, can you tell me what needs to be changed in my article in order to have it on Wikipedia? Arshak Khachatrian is very famous here in our city and I want to add his information here. Please let me know, thank you! Yevvvah (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references are all from valid and trustworthy sources, there is no social media link for you to mark it as a promotion. What's wrong? Yevvvah (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yevvvah: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You cannot just slap all your sources on the end of the article; they need to be cited at claims within the article itself, specifically ones those sources can explicitly support. This is not negotiable. I will look at your sources shortly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited the refs in the article, all of them are there. Please recheck and come back to me. 🙏 Thanks @Jéské Couriano! Yevvvah (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yevvvah: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are actually usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské CourianoExcuse me, but your rejection reasons don't make sense. None of the sources was written by Arshak Khachatrian / Khachatryan.
Yevvvah (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look: Your draft has been rejected and won't be reviewed again. There's no point in trying to convince people otherwise. You're just wasting time. If you're looking for something else to do, the task center has a list of tasks that you can help with. C F A 💬 16:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yevvvah: all your sources are primary and/or non-independent, and therefore don't contribute towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yevvyah, 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) 17:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yevvvah: You're mis-interpreting what I'm saying.
  • Tumo grants no notability because the article merely quotes him and does not actually discuss him. The article is practically a listicle and doesn't really devote any space to anyone mentioned in it.
  • TheOrg has no credited author. We're very leery of uncredited articles, or articles credited to a role ("News Desk", etc.) because of how frequently they're used to publish content that bypassed the editor's desk.
  • Google only ever regurgitates whatever the publisher says (or in the case of the Knowledge Panel, whatever nonsense they scrape from random, disparate sources) and so nothing Google presents is usable for notability since they don't actually subject it to editorial oversight.
  • Interview vs. podcast is a distinction without a difference. Anything Khachatrian writes, says, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability by dint of his direct involvement in it. The same applies to anything written, said, filmed, commissioned, semaphored, interpretive-danced, etc. by any entity closely linked to him. You cannot seriously be arguing that an interview of him isn't him speaking about himself.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 6 August 2024 review of submission by Yevrowl

[edit]

Greetings! Please suggest — what else can be improved in this article? Yevrowl (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:31, 6 August 2024 review of submission by OliveRacc

[edit]

I need help making this page better in general and I have never used Wikipedia before. OliveRacc (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your Minecraft server. If independent reliable sources like news reports discuss your server, that would be different. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 6 August 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.
If there are no such sources then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

[edit]

03:23, 7 August 2024 review of submission by 112.203.134.153

[edit]

Why did you delete it! The information is correct, and the sources ARE correct! 112.203.134.153 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is here Draft:Ballad of Margo and Dread. Theroadislong (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know: Fandom, like other wikis, is a type of user-generated content, and thus is not a reliable source or useful for establishing notability. C F A 💬 05:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:23, 7 August 2024 review of submission by AI Thabiso

[edit]

Show notable external links for my article AI Thabiso (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AI Thabiso With respect, no. Please see WP:BURDEN. If you want it accepted, you do the work. If it passes our criteria it will be accepted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AI Thabiso (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 7 August 2024 review of submission by VovanAZAZ

[edit]

The submission of the draft was declined. But this sportperson took part in the Olympics, had an achievement of being the first African to do so, and the draft has an independent reference confirming this (SA Sports Press) VovanAZAZ (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merely appearing in the Olympics is no longer sufficient to be notable as Wikipedia defines notability for people. It was at one point, but is no longer. WP:NSPORT is now just a list of things likely to get a person significant coverage in independent sources. Leygonie must meet the same guidelines as any other person- there must be significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. If his notability is being the first African to participate in a particular event, you must summarize independent reliable sources that discuss this aspect of him beyond just saying it occurred. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 7 August 2024 review of submission by 45.117.215.79

[edit]

I need help in getting the page approved, I would need detailed help in getting this approved 45.117.215.79 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. If you have an account, log in when posting. What specific help are you seeking? The reviewers left detailed messages, please see these, and the policies linked to therein carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 7 August 2024 review of submission by 1967user

[edit]

I tried to create a Wikipedia page for Akira Sawa several times, but it was always rejected.

A few times it was a problem of notability.

So, on August 4, I added a page that mentioned his membership in the AAP and his election as a Fellow of the AAAS, which are proof that he is recognized as an excellent scientist in the academic community and his patents. Still, it was rejected because it was considered to be advertisement-like.

The references for his membership in the AAP and his election as a Fellow of the AAAS are the websites of the AAP and the AAAS, which I consider to be reliable sources.

I also got some information about Akira Sawa from the official website of Johns Hopkins University.

All the science papers are those in which Akira Sawa was involved, but they were published in top journals such as Science and Nature, which I think are also reliable publication sources.

I gathered information and wrote it because I thought he should be listed on Wikipedia, but honestly, I don't know what to change and how to change it further.

Please advise if there is any information I should reduce since it seems like an advertisement. Thank you. 1967user (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is still lacking any reliable, independent, secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 7 August 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) 18:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 7 August 2024 review of submission by Prince kumar 2.0

[edit]

what is need for creat article of sheela pandit prajapati Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOLITICIAN for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince kumar 2.0 this is not happening, and you shouldn't keep creating new accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
any othet options Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's the option of dropping it...? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can i know what is comes issue in this draft. Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This won't be published, because
a) the draft doesn't provide the slightest evidence of notability of any kind;
b) this has been created so many times that the whole issue has become tendentious; and
c) blocked users aren't allowed to edit anyway.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How to unblock can you help me please Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are indeed blocked, then you must not edit English Wikipedia, under any user account or none until you have had the block lifted. See Guide to appealing blocks. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:40, 7 August 2024 review of submission by KTnow

[edit]

I tried to create a page for the UK government's new Net Zero czar, appointed relatively recently. My draft was rejected. I work in public policy myself, it feels like a no-brainer to me that Chris Stark should have an article about him on Wikipedia (even prior to his recent appointment). There are many people less high-profile who have a dedicated article.

So I'm trying to ascertain:

i) Is my measure of notability off target? In which case, while I may not agree in principle, I'll just abandon the article. Or

ii) Is it an issue with referencing? I felt the referencing I provided was pretty decent, with a number of credible sources, but would appreciate a steer if not. Is it, for example, that sources like the Carbon Trust and the Climate Change Committee – while credible – are too close to the individual? Is it that sources like Business Green and renewable Energy Magazine – while reasonably well regarded in the industry – are too niche to be deemed credible on Wikipedia?

Any steer would be welcome. Thanks in advance! :-)

@KTnow: the problem is that half your sources are primary, the other half are appointment news (ie. routine business reporting), none of which contributes towards notability. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This helps a lot @DoubleGrazing, thank you. Now I have a sense of what is missing. So if I understand correctly, Carbon Trust and the Climate Change Committee here are considered primary sources. I wasn't aware that appointment news didn't count towards notability. Does that include a source like The Guardian (surely an appointment reported in The Guardian would contribute towards notability?). Are you able to point me to where appointment news is mentioned, I wouldn't mind reading the exact guidance for myself. Thank you, appreciate it! KTnow (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KTnow: just to say that this draft has now been accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing! KTnow (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:01, 7 August 2024 review of submission by Ninjaboy999096

[edit]

this is not a test it is just a silly thing and it also probably wont be a forgotten one because there is no similar pages to this Ninjaboy999096 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninjaboy999096: Is there something specific you need help with? C F A 💬 03:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ninjaboy999096: Draftspace is not for unserious junk that would never be an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:54, 7 August 2024 review of submission by Rare Crane

[edit]

Regarding notability, in the category of entertainers, it says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" -- what qualifies as significant here? Haran seems to have taken named roles with dialogue in multiple TV shows and also had a (non-starring) role in a feature film. Does "significant" imply main character or recurring character versus just single-episode appearances?

I can work on finding better sources for the article overall. Rare Crane (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rare Crane: I don't know if there is a straightforward 'right' answer to this. I'd say it should be either a leading role, or at least one of the more important supporting ones; not just bit part or extra. One way I usually look at this is by going through the actor's filmography of notable works and seeing whether and how they're described in them. I just had a look, and the only one in Haran's filmography where the Wikipedia article even mentions here is Come September. To me that suggests that the WP:NACTOR guideline isn't satisfied. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 8

[edit]

04:16, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Montied

[edit]

(Specifically regarding Draft:Seirei_Gakuen_High_School) Is it that there needs to be a number of reliable and independent sources, as well as more information? If not, why is the Japanese language version of the page considered notable? Montied (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montied, your exceptionally sparse two sentence draft fails to make the case that this high school is notable. The draft mentions Arnold Janssen but his biography does not even mention Japan, which calls that claim into question. You need to write a draft that makes a convincing case that this school complies with WP:NSCHOOL. As for the Japanese Wikipedia, each language version of Wikipedia is an autonomous project that sets its own notability guidelines. The presence of a poorly referenced article about a topic on another language version is worth nothing on the English Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll work on it, thank you for explaining. Montied (talk) 04:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:33, 8 August 2024 review of submission by ValerieCo

[edit]

Hello, I have made some edits to the article after it was declined last month including adding sources and editing the tone. I wanted to some advice on whether this is now acceptable before I resubmit. Thanks in advance. ValerieCo (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ValerieCo, please explain the meaning of "Co" in your username. We do not use the registered trademark symbol in encyclopedia articles. Your draft has an inappropriately promotional tone. Rigorous neutrality is required and promotional editing of any kind is forbidden on Wikipedia. The notion that some interesting building used timber from some specific company is not an argument that the company is notable but possibly that the building itself is notable. I have spent 40 years working in construction and major commercial buildings use products from thousands of companies. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the first two letters of my surname. Are you able to share any constructive feedback on sections I should change? ValerieCo (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, ValerieCo, Your draft has an inappropriately promotional tone so it should be clear to you that you should edit your draft to bring it into rigorous compliance with the neutral point of view. Many editors may well assume that "Co" is an abbreviation of "company" which may adversely affect your editing experience since company accounts are not allowed. You might want to consider changing the name of your account, and also to refrain from editing in a fashion that implies that you are editing on behalf of a company. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ValerieCo. Nothing in the draft suggests that this is a company that the world has taken any particular note of. Awards count for little unless they are themselves notable - every industry has a ton of awards that nobody outside the industry is the least bit interested in.
Which wholly independent source described them as "carbon-negative"? We can't take their own word for such a value-laden property.
As far as I can see, not one of your sources meets the triple criterion of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of Abodo: that is the only kind of source that contributes to notability. See WP:42.
Remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Janep1814

[edit]

I've received feedback that my draft article reads like a CV. Can you provide some pointers on how to change this? Thanks, Janep1814 (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 8 August 2024 review of submission by 112.209.9.48

[edit]

Hello new storm in the 2024 Pacific typhoon season Can Submit the draft? 112.209.9.48 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello edit contents for Typhoon see WP:TEA#Draft 112.209.9.48 (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 8 August 2024 review of submission by 51.9.253.114

[edit]

I sent my suggested updating of my page Maggie Humm (in my sandbox) out for review (I am unable to update due to conflict of interest). It was declined immediately the reason given that the page already exists! Of course it does but not the updated version! How do I resolve what should be a very simple update? 51.9.253.114 (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to log into your account whenever editing, Maggie Humm.
I don't know if you saw my comment, that you should instead make edit requests via the dedicated wizard Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks! I have resubmitted as you suggest via the dedicated wizard (above). Crossing fingers it works this time! 51.9.253.114 (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for respecting procedures regarding COI. But I'm sorry, you have not succeeded in 'resubmitting' anything. The Edit Request Wizard is a system which allows you to request specific targeted changes to an article, supported by reliable, independent sources. Putting paragraphs of text on the article's talk page will achieve very little. You have not submitted a request to the edit request system, so editors who normally patrol that system will not know you have posted. If they do happen to see it, they will see an almost unreferenced piece of writing, which it will take significant work for anybody to compare with the existing text and decide whether or not to make any edits to the article from it.
Given that there does not appear to be a single source cited which is both reliable and independent, I do not imagine that many editors will be willing to put in that work.
What you need to do is to use the wizard to make very specific requests ("Replace X by Y"; "Remove Z"; "Add W after J"), and make sure that every piece of information you wish to add is cited to a reliable published source, and (unless it is uncontroversial factual information like places and dates) to a source wholly independent of you and your associates. Making separate requests will increase the likelihood that people will pick them up, one by one.
Bear in mind that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I have included reliable independent sources as hyper links which can easily be verified. And kept all of the original sources which have already been verified. The existing text is only four lines plus a book list. I have changed none of this simply added. I imitated the Susan Sellers entry which uses the same kind of language because Susan has a similar career to mine.
I thought that I had requested an editor to review.
I would be grateful to know how to make that request and where? Thanks again. Maggie Humm (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Faruk Raj1

[edit]

what is my article problem.why you are rejected my article. please accepted my article Faruk Raj1 (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faruk Raj1: your draft has been rejected, and I have just requested that it be deleted. There isn't any sign of notability, and in any case you're not supposed to be writing about yourself (see WP:AUTOBIO). You may want to try the likes of LinkedIn etc. instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 8 August 2024 review of submission by AI Thabiso

[edit]

I can't find my reable source's help me please, edit it for me I'll be so pleased if you do so.. AI Thabiso (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find reliable sources, then it is likely that the club does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability|. Sorry. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 8 August 2024 review of submission by Abeeha Awais

[edit]

Need suggestions to improve the draft and making it capable for the main space please Abeeha Awais (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, which is the end of the line: the reviewer has decided that there is not enough material available to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - certainly, not one of the sources you cite meets the triple criteria of reliability, independence from the subject, and significant coverage of the subject. If you think there are suitable sources, you could approach the reviewer who rejected it, Qcne, but I advise you to make very sure that every one of the sources you propose meets all three of those criteria, or Qcne is likely to be justifiably annoyed at you wasting their (voluntary) time. ColinFine (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 8 August 2024 review of submission by CBathka

[edit]

The article has been updated with a formal tone and neutral POV. Please advise whether there are sections that require further edits to tone and POV. Thank you! -CB CBathka (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CBathka: sorry, we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, and will get feedback once a reviewer comes along to assess it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thank you for the information. CBathka (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 9

[edit]

02:32, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Mr.S Biswas

[edit]

What's problem 

Mr.S Biswas (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.S Biswas: the problem is that you shouldn't be writing about yourself, this is not LinkedIn or some other social media platform where you tell the world about your exploits. There is also nothing to suggest that you are notable as defined in the Wikipedia context. This draft has consequently been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Gerrybo80

[edit]

Last week, I received notice that you had rejected the Bitzino draft on Wikipedia because the reviewer thought I was being compensated for drafting the article. As their your instructions, I responded to assure the reviewer that I was not being compensated or affiliated with the company or topic in any way (in fact the company is no longer in business).

Today, I noticed that the reviewer changed the reason for rejection to state that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article meets both the General Notability Guideline and the Subject-specific Notability Guideline for organizations and companies. So I do not understand the reason for rejection or how to fix the problem. The article is well sourced with more than 26 sources including several news accounts, and professional and academic journals.

Could you please let me know what specifically I should adjust to make the article acceptable for inclusion? Additionally, could you inform me of the specific reasons for this rejection? I currently have three articles in the draft phase for publication on applied cryptography topics and have been active in editing several other pages. Understanding the exact requirements would help me avoid similar issues in the future.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Gerrybo80 (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerrybo80: that's not quite what happened. This draft was declined a couple of months ago, you resubmitted it, and last week it was rejected as non-notable. As a separate activity, the rejecting reviewer also posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, which I can see you responded to the following day. This query is not the reason for the rejection.
Rejected drafts cannot normally be resubmitted; that is the definition of rejection. If new evidence of notability is available which wasn't earlier considered, you may approach the rejecting reviewer directly to appeal the rejection. However, I note that no such evidence has been added to the draft, or referred to here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your clear and kind explanation. As someone who's new to Wikipedia and a bit older, I find some aspects of this process quite confusing.
I took the time to review the notability policy for companies, and I believe the Bitzino draft meets the criteria with its 26 sources, which include several news articles, as well as professional and academic journals like Ars Technica, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and the Vanderbilt Journal of Law.
However, the reviewer's response to my request for clarification was quite disheartening. They dismissed my efforts as a "waste of time" and assumed that I was paid to draft an article about a now-defunct company, and that I didn't collect sources before writing. Both of these assumptions are completely incorrect. I simply wanted to write articles about applied cryptography. Given the reviewer's stance, do you think it’s best to abandon this work?
Additionally, based on your experience, is the tone and style of discourse I encountered with CFA common on Wikipedia? I've truly enjoyed participating on the platform and have found everyone else to be kind and helpful, which is why this experience with CFA was so surprising to me.
____________
Rejected: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Bitzino
[edit source]
Hi CFA, Thank you for reviewing my article.
Last week, I received notice that you had rejected the Bitzino draft on Wikipedia because it appeared I was being compensated for drafting the article. As per your instructions, I responded to assure you that I was not being compensated or affiliated with the company or topic in any way.
Today, I noticed that the reason for rejection has been updated to state that the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article meets both the General Notability Guideline and the Subject-specific Notability Guideline for organizations and companies.
Could you please let me know what specifically I should adjust to make the article acceptable for inclusion? Additionally, could you inform me of the specific reasons for this rejection? I currently have three articles in the draft phase for publication on applied cryptography topics and have been active in editing several other pages. Understanding the exact requirements would help me avoid similar issues in the future. Thank you for your time and assistance.
Thanks Gerrybo80 (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerrybo80: Hi, I rejected your draft because the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. The rejection reason has never changed. I rejected it instead of declining it because I did the research myself and found absolutely zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. No amount of editing or adjustments to the article can change that. If I allowed you to resubmit it, it would be wasting both your time and future reviewers' time. Next time, to make sure you aren't wasting time, you should try writing an article forwards (i.e. finding sourcing before starting the article). Let me know if you have any other questions. Happy editing, C F A 💬 14:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Gerrybo80 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:04, 9 August 2024 review of submission by MRBELALIA

[edit]

Hello, I am the manager of Amoune Talens. I want to create a page for him. Please help me create it. Thank you. MRBELALIA (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MRBELALIA: Draft:Amoune Talens has been rejected and will not therefore be considered further. Please do not resubmit rejected drafts.
You must disclose your conflict of interest immediately before any further editing. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 9 August 2024 review of submission by 2806:250:14C:B596:392D:19C6:9F3C:B95C

[edit]

Sli45 is a German-British animated web series 2806:250:14C:B596:392D:19C6:9F3C:B95C (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question. This draft has been rejected and its fate is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sli45. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Ahmed Elgeady

[edit]

لقد قمت بإنشاء مقالة باسم Ahmed El-geady DR.X و هذه المقالة تتكلم عني ارجو المساعدة Ahmed Elgeady (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmed Elgeady: I assume you're asking about Draft:Ahmed Elgeady DR.X? It has been declined, because it isn't in English. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content in English. It is also almost entirely unreferenced. And you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:57, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Grrrr(hug)

[edit]

Why denying it Grrrr(hug) (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grrrr(hug): this draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 9 August 2024 review of submission by OtikolenoiL

[edit]

Hello dear all, I ask for the proofreading of this draft which is already a Wikipedia article but in French. and we wanted to make another page in English.

Thank you cordially OtikolenoiL (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OtikolenoiL: sorry, we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk, you'll need to wait until a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
Whether an article on this subject exists in the French-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is completely separate.
Who is "we" in your question? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one individual's use only. If there are more than one of you using this account, the others need to register their own accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening dear Wikipedia,
Please note that I am the one and only person to use my Wikipedia user account OtikolenoiL (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:33, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Benkariuki

[edit]

I'm not sure why this afc draft has been declined while other organisations in the same industry have been published on Wikipedia with far less sources. See examples below: 1. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MacDougall%27s 2. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fellows_Auctioneers 3. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tennants 4. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Phillips_(auctioneers)

I don't get the reasoning behind the decline when the sources submitted are independent, verifiable and trustworthy.

Many thanks, Ben Benkariuki (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benkariuki: it's not the quantity of sources, it's rather then quality that matters. A quick scan through the ones cited in this draft suggests they're all routine business reporting and primary sources, none of which contributes towards notability per WP:NCORP. Seeing as you've resubmitted the draft, you'll get a more thorough review once a reviewer gets around to assessing it.
As for other articles that may be out there, this is the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is a fallacy, as we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles but rather by reference to the prevailing policies and guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Cheers for that. You're right it's more about the quality. In my resubmission, I didn't use this argument only added more sources to try and answer the reviewers queries. I posed the question here as I couldn't understand how other Wikis get published, it seems like a different tier evaluation system applied to other submissions. Benkariuki (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Benkariuki: I haven't looked at the other articles you've pointed to so can't comment on them specifically, but in general terms, articles can come about in a variety of ways. Some may have been published by editors with sufficient permissions to publish them directly into the main article space. Others may be so old as to predate the current review processes and/or referencing and notability requirements. Some may have been originally well referenced, but over time as the content and references change, they may have deteriorated.
When we become aware of substandard articles, we try to deal with the issues, but with nearly 7m published articles (and counting), this is a mammoth task that will probably never be completed. If you come across articles that don't meet our guidelines, you're very welcome to either improvement or tag them with appropriate maintenance templates for others to action later on. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Noted! You guys have a huge task and I appreciate what you guys do to keep the site upto date. When I spot pages needing a spruce up I'll tag them as suggested. Otherwise, thanks and have a great weekend. Many thanks, Ben Benkariuki (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Benkariuki, please don't use the "but there's these other articles" argument. One of those articles you mentioned is now up for deletion, and none of them rely on a resume ("Notable auctions") in the way that your draft does. If we take that out, we have a few articles from regional newspapers and the Antiques Trade Gazette--and in the version I'm looking at, that means that of the first seven "references", three are company or directory links. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies I get your argument, and I would never use that logic to request another review when I know a draft isn't adding any value Wikipedia content. My question was purely based on what standards are applied / used to approve organisations templates so that any submissions in the future are spot on. Benkariuki (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 9 August 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:3106:E5B8:47DC:DA3A:BF3A:D9DA

[edit]

I Know We Haven't Made Any Mistake In This Draft We Also Want To Make Best Wikipedia. 2402:8100:3106:E5B8:47DC:DA3A:BF3A:D9DA (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see nothing of encyclopedic value in there, nothing is properly referenced, and capitalization and grammar are all wrong as well. Being a YouTuber doesn't mean you get to have a Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Shubhamxrameshwar564

[edit]

Please Accept Our DrafDraft Shubhamxrameshwar564 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shubhamxrameshwar564: Your draft has been rejected and won't be considered any further. The vast, vast majority of YouTube channels — even lots with millions of subscribers — do not meet Wikipedia's strict notability guidelines. I suggest you check out the Task Center before starting another article. C F A 💬 14:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Shubhamxrameshwar564

[edit]

Accept our draft Shubhamxrameshwar564 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly unlikely to be accepted, I have tagged it for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any further threads on this draft will be summarily removed as disruptive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Atelier2002

[edit]

Hi– I created this page and it was recently not accepted. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any and all advice on how to get the article up to the standard of acceptance.

Thanks so much Atelier2002 (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters you need to write in a dry neutral tone, content like "Finding her position as a muse not quite enough to fulfill her creative feminist spirit, White turned to visual art" has no place in an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Atelier2002 (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Atelier2002: this draft has been declined for lack of evidence of notability. You need to show that the person meets either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ARTIST notability guideline. Please study both guidelines carefully, and provide evidence that satisfies one of them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Johneverettjones

[edit]

Hi, I received a note that the article did not have reliable sources. This article about a Swedish-American was based on an existing article in Wikipedia in the Swedish language: 

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

Can you help me to get this approved. They are equivalent entries.

Thanks,

John Johneverettjones (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johneverettjones: they may be "equivalent entries", but being accepted into one language version of Wikipedia doesn't in any way guarantee acceptance into another, as each version is a completely separate project with their own policies and requirements. Acceptance into the English-language one is only possible if the draft meets our requirements, and this one falls short on both notability and verifiability fronts, both being core requirements for publication here. In short, you need to work on your referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Bryllig

[edit]

I have a fundamental question: Does Wikipedia accept a well-documented real object (in this case, the Stiller-Smith engine) that contains or uses the subject of the article (in this case, the MultiFAZE mechanism) as verification of the existence/notability/noteworthiness of that subject and hence its suitability for Wikipedia, or is only written verification accepted? Bryllig (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bryllig If the thing has verifiable notability then a draft on it will be accepted. If it merely exists, then not. As an example, I exist, but I do not warrant an article here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thing1 doesn't merely exist, there are about 20 references for it. Is that enough for it to be notable?
If Thing1 is notable and features Thing2 as the major central component, without which it would not exist, then is Thing2 also notable? Bryllig (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Notability is not inherited. ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions would seem to be aimed at editors and so requires that I abstract the information I want, which could lead to confusion. The heading Notability is inherited seems to contradict what you say. In any case, this section is not a content guideline or policy.
The engine and the mechanism are so closely associated, they are almost identical - the reason the engine was built at all was to demonstrate the mechanism and validate intensive research and analysis of the mechanism. The whole engine programme revolved around the mechanism. I cannot find anything under Notability that speaks against inheriting notability with such a close association. Bryllig (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig, if the mechanism is so crucial to the function of the engine, surely there will be sources that discuss it alongside the engine? Even more so if the engine was built purely to showcase the mechanism.
The page ColinFine linked refers to arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, one of which is that notability is inherited - this is not a convincing argument per Wikipedia standards, which I think everyone here will admit can be a bit byzantine. The reason you might sometimes get linked to a page that seems to only be for published articles is because if your draft becomes an article, it may at some stage of its life be nominated for deletion. Being nominated for deletion as soon as it's accepted is not unheard of; the criteria for acceptance is that reviewers think it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion nomination. Obviously this is extremely subjective, so someone else may very well disagree that the topic is notable and nominate it as soon as they see it.
Reviewers usually try to foresee any obvious problems that would arise in a deletion discussion, so that the original author has a chance to fix them in draftspace rather than in mainspace. Deletion discussions usually only take a week, so you'd be under significantly more pressure to get the article into shape at that stage than you are now.
I had a skim through your draft and saw this: If this draft is ever accepted, I intend to tidy it up. That makes me think maybe you aren't aware that as soon as a draft is accepted, it's available for the entire world to see. The time for tidying is now, before you submit it again, so that it's ready for that!
I know there's a lot to keep in mind, so I won't overload you with information right now, but if you plan to keep working on the draft I would be happy to look over your sources and give you a quick analysis of which you can use (or what to look for if none are usable). Step one is making sure the sources you use have "MultiFAZE mechanism" written in them at least once, so we know for sure they're discussing it! Good luck and happy editing. StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:59, 9 August 2024 review of submission by JustinoR1996

[edit]

What exactly has to be notable about me? Im a local celebrity in my community and I have a historical case pending in federal court. JustinoR1996 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


What should I include to make my article worthy of nobility? JustinoR1996 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, that is what the use of the word rejected is meant to convey. Wikipedia is not a place to write about yourself or publicize your legal actions against law enforcement. See WP:AUTO and WP:PROMO. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JustinoR1996 Your father's death might be notable, but it happens often enough to lack notability. The lawsuit might be notable, but it happens often enough to lack notability. With the publicity you have generated you are only notable for one thing if you are notable at all. Please see WP:BLP1E. Please also see WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 10

[edit]

04:53, 10 August 2024 review of submission by NEOKALIDAS

[edit]

Why my article is quickly rejected. I am trying to put my copyrighted new theory of entirety on this platform to enhance public awareness and I keep no profit making intent vested in doing so. Please suggest as I am new user.

Thank you.

Kalishwar Das www.kalishwardas.com NEOKALIDAS (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what existing reliable sources have already published on a subject, nothing more. ColinFine (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:55, 10 August 2024 review of submission by 162.156.70.174

[edit]

How is it contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 162.156.70.174 (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:56, 10 August 2024 review of submission by 162.156.70.174

[edit]

How is it contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 162.156.70.174 (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Grrrr(hug)

[edit]

How can I make it properly give me the true reason why you are rejecting it Grrrr(hug) (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grrrr(hug): this draft has nothing to suggest the subject is even remotely notable, and certainly no evidence of that. Besides, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in any case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 10 August 2024 review of submission by 122.52.68.94

[edit]

see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#03:23,_7_August_2024_review_of_submission_by_112.203.134.153 has copyed [1]

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024)&action=edit&section=2 https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Tropical_Storm_Maria_(2024)&action=edit&section=4

now has Citation needed the Draft that says This section needs expansion. Fix issues and resubmit

15:15, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Waqar Malik younas

[edit]

this is my all details Waqar Malik younas (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Waqar Malik younas: you don't ask a question, but your draft Draft:Waqar Malik Younas has been deleted as promotional. Also note that you should not be writing about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Bryllig

[edit]

The Stiller-Smith engine is the MultiFAZE mechanism plus the usual parts also found in other engines. These usual parts are not noteworthy, so, what remains is the mechanism, an eccentric gear train that converts reciprocating motion of the pistons to rotary motion of an output shaft. The string of academic papers on the engine are not about the usual parts also found in other engines, they are about the mechanism. This makes the mechanism noteworthy according to the Wiki rules that I have been able to find, so please accept the draft article. Bryllig (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was already answered yesterday at #20:25, 9 August 2024 review of submission by Bryllig. You did not need to post this twice more. C F A 💬 16:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not answered. Please quote the rule on which the rejection is based, and where to find it. Bryllig (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline:
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Hope this helps, C F A 💬 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this requirement is satisfied. Bryllig (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can very confidently say it does not. I have looked through your sources and can't even find a mention of whatever the "MultiFAZE mechanism" is. Googling "MultiFAZE mechanism" literally only returns Wikipedia results and Wikipedia clones. Does it even exist? This is never going to be accepted. C F A 💬 17:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does exist. Inside the Stiller-Smith engine. Both have the same eccentric gear train, the S-S engine using a copy (almost certainly) of the original. Bryllig (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't work that way. You were given a valid reason yesterday and are now pettifogging to try and ignore it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trying to ignore something. Can editors choose not to follow the rules? Bryllig (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig: your account is autoconfirmed, so you can move this into the main article space yourself. Does that answer your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig Let us set the rest of this discussion aside.
I believe this needs a significant rewrite to avoid accusations or WP:OR. That notwithstanding, you have every right, as DoubleGrazing has said, to migrate this to article space yourself. After some thought you should consider the merits of doing so. You obviously feel that you have done all you can within the AFC process, and you should note that this process is not compulsory.
Reviewers try to help editors. Sometimes that is not appreciated, perhaps not understood. That genuinely doesn't matter.
There is a downside to moving to become an article. A reviewer's role is to accept any draft we believe has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. Prior reviewers believe it will fail. If it fails that causes difficulties for any new article on the topic, which must be substantially different for the deleted version or it wil face summary deletion.
My thoughts?
I think it has a 50% chance exactly of passing or failing without a rewrite. With a rewrite I think 51% chance of success. This are my views, those of one editor. You may disagree. If so, please move it to become an article. Please tidy it up if you do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why there may be accusations of WP:OR. One way to get round that would be to rename the article as the Stiller-Smith engine. However, that engine is a copy, plagiarism, and doesn't deserve its own article as much as the original, in my view. Unless, perhaps, it is clearly exposed in the article as a copy. But then some might consider that as not being neutral, pushing a political agenda etc. I need to mull this over. Bryllig (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Stiller-Smith engine seems to be notable based on a quick search. But I genuinely cannot find any source that confirms the existence of the "MultiFAZE mechanism". Do you have one that I might've missed? C F A 💬 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does exist. Inside the Stiller-Smith engine. Both have the same eccentric gear train, the S-S engine using a copy (almost certainly consciously copied) of the original. The same eccentric gear train can be seen in the drawings of the patents for the original and the copy, and in some of the papers on the S-S engine. Bryllig (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it can be seen. It matters if it has been seen by reliable sources to be the same. We're not allowed to make that technical judgment on Wikipedia, which includes you, as us drawing an independent conclusion that they are the same is clear-cut WP:OR. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that sounds good, if I understand it correctly!
Not quite sure what account is autoconfirmed means.
Not quite sure how to move the draft into the main article space, but am sure help can be found. Bryllig (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig Autoconfirmed means you have all the permissions you need to do everything any ordinary editor can do.
Moving is our equivalent of renaming 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bryllig, before doing this, please understand that if you move the draft into the main article space then it can be nominated for deletion. If a consensus develops to delete the now-article, it will be significantly harder to have it stay live the second (third, fourth, etc) time you create it. You might also have to completely rewrite it from scratch, with different sources, since articles deleted following a deletion discussion are not eligible for refund and the sources may have been deemed unreliable.
I'm not saying this in an effort to stop you; if you want to move it into the main space, that's your right. But I know how much time and energy can go into a draft, and if it were me I would want someone to let me know the worst-case scenario and how likely it is. Given that multiple editors have raised concerns about OR and RS, I think it is more likely than not that you would have a deleted article on your hands. Of course I could be very wrong - and if so, I'll be excited to learn about this new topic and end up down another Wiki rabbithole! It just seemed unfair to me to read this thread and not give you a heads-up about the hurdles that may end up in your path. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Alizdirector

[edit]

Dear Sir I have not find any advertising on the article. Could you please advice how to make it perfect? Your kind hand on it will be appreciated Alizdirector (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 10 August 2024 review of submission by Alizdirector

[edit]

Could get suport on this Article of Kagoj. Its a tremendous film of Bangladesh that should have an article like others. Your kind support will be highly appreciated and a great contribution in Wikipedia Alizdirector (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected and now deleted. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 11

[edit]

06:13, 11 August 2024 review of submission by IamAnisurrahman

[edit]

Please review the concern article for verification, multiple issue are fixed. IamAnisurrahman (talk) 06:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that the draft will not be considered further. If you have fundamentally changed the draft and addressed the concerns of reviewers, please first appeal to the last reviewer.
Very curious how you came to edit about that draft. 331dot (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaan'nisar. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 11 August 2024 review of submission by Dashingdumps

[edit]

Hi,What can I do for this.Help me I will try my best to make it according to Wikipedia policies. Dashingdumps (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dashingdumps: why don't you just give up? This will not happen. Find something worthwhile to do with your time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPI filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kicks of seven#11 August 2024. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 11 August 2024 review of submission by Priya.ve

[edit]

Help ume understand better on what is lacking in the page. Priya.ve (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message on your draft as to what is missing. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 11 August 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:3177:B010:58E5:5136:E1AD:A327

[edit]

Why can't they can publish 2600:1700:3177:B010:58E5:5136:E1AD:A327 (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has essentially no content, because almost nothing has yet been published on the subject. Wait until it has been written about (which probably means waiting until it happens). Wikipedia is not a crystal ball ColinFine (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1239798771"