Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


November 21

[edit]

00:53, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Yourculturalscholar

[edit]

Hello,

My submission for Nick Barili was declined with the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."

I have since updated the draft to include references to significant and independent coverage from notable publications such as the LA Times, Deadline, The Oscars, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Princeton, CBS News, ABC News, Popsugar, HOLA Mag, Complex, Vibe, and Hip Hop DX.

Could you please advise if there are additional areas I should improve to demonstrate notability or address any other concerns? I want to ensure that the article aligns with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability.

Thank you for your time and guidance! Yourculturalscholar (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourculturalscholar: you have resubmitted Draft:Nick Barili, so you will receive feedback when a reviewer comes across it and assesses it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 21 November 2024 review of submission by জামাল রেজা

[edit]

I am unable to hyperlink the page and my profile can you please suggest that and also tell me some of them for that. জামাল রেজা (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, it needs to be exactly as the title is- Draft:Jamal Reza. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@জামাল রেজা: I'm not sure what, if anything, you're asking, but as your draft is in a language other than English, it couldn't be accepted no matter what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make it as soon as possible please...? is it possible within half an hour? জামাল রেজা (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
জামাল রেজা we have no deadlines here. Why are you on a deadline? And, as noted, the draft is not in English, you need to go to the Wikipedia of that language to post it. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though, I'd recommend against it; it's a non-neutral autobiography. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Tomdee UG

[edit]

I need someone who can help me because, i try my best Tomdee UG (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomdee UG: your draft, such as it is, has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Mhamdym

[edit]

Why was my manuscript rejected? Mhamdym (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhamdym: your draft presents no evidence whatsoever that you are notable enough to be included, not to mention that it's basically just pure self-promotion. Please read WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why we very strongly discourage autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhamdym You have confused Wikipedia with a website that is interested in your life and achievements. Please use a resume site like LinkedIn. This draft has been sent for deletion as a blatant avert. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Mydaemonthirst

[edit]

I need to understand what sources I am allowed to use. I created a further draft 'Swindon Health Hydro, Formerly Known as Milton Road Baths' because I wanted to change the title and I wanted to be more thorough with the details of the building's history, backed up with more references. If I know what I can and can't cite then I will find other references, however long that takes. The 'Swindon Victorian Baths' article is about just one element of the building and is part of the story of the Victorian Turkish baths movement - it deserves to be kept separate as part of that story, with a cross-reference from an article about the Health Hydro. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mydaemonthirst There is a strong suggestion by Robert McClenon that your work has a better home in Swindon Victorian Turkish Baths and that it be merged there. You may wish to discuss this with them directly.
Please do not create further drafts. The eventual name is flexible and can be decided at any time.
With regard to sources, the term Reliable Sources excludes anything that has no strong professional editor oversight. This excludes blogs, amateur websites, almost all of Youtube, etc etc. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting the story of the Health Hydro into an article on the Turkish baths would not be right.
As I've stated several times already there are strong reasons for my objection to subsuming the Health Hydro in an article about the Turkish baths:
  1. The Turkish baths are just one part of the Health Hydro - telling the story of the whole building in an article about just one element would be a wasted effort - no-one would look for the Health Hydro in an article on Swindon Victorian Turkish Baths.
  2. People have clearly made an effort to tell the story of the Victorian Turkish Baths movement of which the Swindon article is just one element. Surely that story should be left to stand?
  3. An article on the Health Hydro would leave the Turkish as about one twentieth of the story, if that. The Health Hydro has two swimming pools and a 'dry side' that is about two thirds of the building. The large pool hall is a remarkable space that looks more like a railway station than a baths. The small pool has it's own story - originally the ladies' pool, it became the pool in which generations of Swindonians learnt to swim. The dry side first housed the Medical Fund Society's broad range of medical services (that Nye Bevan cited as an inspiration for the NHS), then an NHS Medical Centre, then a whole range of complementary medical offerings and is now entering a new phase in which it's unclear what will be there.
I do not understand why there can't be a separate article on the Health Hydro, cross-referenced to the existing article. Then the full story of the Hydro could be told, whilst preserving the story of the Victorian Turkish baths movement.
I'll return to the Swindon Health Hydro, add more details to that but ensure that the references are valid. Where this leaves unsupported information I'll have to hunt down approved sources. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mydaemonthirst. When you say "I'll have to hunt down approved sources", you are showing that, like most drafts written by inexperienced editors, you have written it WP:BACKWARDS. An article should contain not one single piece of information which is not verifiable from a reliable published source. Not one.
More generally My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. (I'm aware that you created your account three years ago, but you had made only a single edit before you started working on this subject). ColinFine (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had solid information - just not acceptable to Wikipedia. For instance, I found papers in the reference library and I downloaded documents from the council's planning website. So I did have solid sources (I now understand that these are not acceptable to Wikipedia). So the article is factual and, locally, I could back it up. Now there are one or two areas that I need to back up with further documentation that I can cite on Wikipedia. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for more in the way of usable sources. I may well need to cut some of the article that I know to be factual but for which I haven't yet found appropriate sources. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Eminrg

[edit]

what should a proper documentation should look like ? Eminrg (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eminrg It is mandatory that articles are properly referenced (see WP:VERIFY) and that the topic itself meets our notability criteria (see WP:NOTABILITY). I am not convinced this topic is notable, especially as you used an AI chatbot to generate most of the text. I would recommend working on improving the existing LGBT articles instead of working on this rejected draft. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies. qcne (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Thocsburg Fish

[edit]

My submission for a page was denied, but I couldn't find any info in the message as to why, I have access to the historical documents and maps proving this happened, and I was planning on using those to fill the page in with more info after once I get other documents and read the already existing ones more. Could it please be accepted, or at least elaborated on as to why it was declined? Thocsburg Fish (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thocsburg Fish: this draft was declined because it is supported by only one source (which is merely listed in the 'External links' section, without being actually cited anywhere), and that source is may or may not be reliable. In any event, a single source is not enough to show that the subject is notable, which would have been another possible reason to decline this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Karnnut Ngamvitroje

[edit]

Am I able to use sources from University's website to cite an information that is directly mentioned the location within the university, also why is my source considered unreliable?? Karnnut Ngamvitroje (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Karnnut Ngamvitroje. 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.
This means that, while the university's own publications and website may be cited in limited ways, the bulk of the article must be based on sources unconnected with the university. ColinFine (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 21 November 2024 review of submission by SmileyShogun

[edit]

Just curious what I can do to improve this article for publication? SmileyShogun (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further and cannot be resubmitted, at least not without major changes that address the concerns of reviewers. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Ngiphondims

[edit]

Because I'm a bigginner. Ngiphondims (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck in your music career, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 21 November 2024 review of submission by SandFrex

[edit]

this artist is an independent artist that just started so technically isn't notable yet because she doesn't have any interviews and stuff. Is there a way to make her article be published? what information would you need? her social media links? SandFrex (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe means that this person does not yet merit an article; see WP:TOOSOON. Interviews do not establish notability, there must be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

[edit]

04:09, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Rager7

[edit]

I have been trying to get the article created but have been rejected three times now. Once, it was due to the person who said it was AI written and was biased. I rewrote it by improving it and providing more sources. The second and third time around (different people by the way) reasoning of rejecting the draft is "it wasn't the best sourced and reliable sources are needed." I'm confused because it should have been accepted the second time around.

So, this leads to question or the problem of this article: Can you find more reliable sources and help improve the information of this article? If not, I presume that this article will go nowhere as the other people suggested that it's better for this article to be on a different wiki instead. Rager7 (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rager7: the third decline was justified by virtue of there having been no improvement to the sourcing following the second decline, so it's effectively a second opinion by a different reviewer concurring with the previous assessment.
As for those sources, I presume FOX5NY is reliable enough. Rolling Stone can be a bit flaky at times, but let's assume it's also okay here. The rest look like blogs, podcasts, and similar, so I wouldn't consider those reliable.
Two reliable sources also isn't quite enough to establish notability per WP:GNG; we usually require three. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could these sources be okay for the article then? Mitch Weiser and Bonnie Bickwit: Teenagers Disappeared Hitchhiking to a Concert - HubPages (HubPages.com) NY to Revisit Case of Kids Who Set Out for Concert, Vanished (newser.com) Two Teens Hitchhiked to a Concert. 50 Years Later, They Haven’t Come Home - COMBO - The Colorado Music Business Organization (coloradomusic.org).
Let me know which ones are reliable and can be put into the article. Sadly, there's not much to go off of here due to the lack of notoriety of this event. Rager7 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I forgot one more source: Vanished from Summer Camp: Where Are Bonnie Bickwit and Mitchel Weiser? (the Lineup.com). Rager7 (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:59, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Rtrtyu

[edit]

You guys need to improve this article so please help in improving it. Rtrtyu (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rtrtyu: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:49, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 78.134.241.82

[edit]

I Like to move into my userspace, or I'm in need to improve this article so please help in improving it. 78.134.241.82 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User space does not host articles. If you want to continue to work on it, you may do so as a draft. You can't move it at all unless you have a confirmed account(an account that is four days old with 10 edits or more). This topic doesn't seem like it is notable as the sources you have are pretty light on coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 22 November 2024 review of submission by WhiteStar2000

[edit]

I am requesting for assistance because the draft was tagged as not suitable for notability in Wikipedia. For now, I am thinking of decreasing the number of references in the said draft and will insert the names of official candidates there once the Philippines' COMELEC issued a final list of candidates. Thank you. WhiteStar2000 (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Mapadam

[edit]

I received the following Comment: "A error parameters in the references, please fix it. Royiswariii Talk! 02:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)" How do I fix error parameters? Any help would be welcome. 

Mapadam (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mapadam. I am not seeing any errors, but I do see notability. I have therefore accepted the draft. Please add some appropriate WP:CATEGORIES. qcne (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Mapadam (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 22 November 2024 review of submission by Kalli navya

[edit]

My submission was denied saying there are not enough references. I searched the internet again but couldn't find any other reliable sources. So, I re-arranged my content and removed some. Can you tell me what else can I do in this case. Kalli navya (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kalli navya, unfortunately I don't think this development merits a Wikipedia article. Our notability requirements are at WP:NPLACE and WP:NBUILD - the colony doesn't meet either.
I'd recommend finding another topic to write about. qcne (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand! I think I will leave this article here in the draft mode and write something else. If I find any references later, I will try to add it. Thanks for your help. Kalli navya (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck :) qcne (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8404:6BC0:208C:DA3B:8FDA:AF92

[edit]

I would like someone to review submission of the changes on this article subject as since the references on the awards and nominations section are add and check it to see if this is okay so far. Or needs more improvement. 2601:201:8404:6BC0:208C:DA3B:8FDA:AF92 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And so they will. It is in the pool for review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 88.235.212.12

[edit]

I can't find the 3rd item to create this page. So, help is required, and there is no primary topic. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor - if Wikipedia only has two articles with "Darington" in the title name, then a disambiguation page shouldn't be created. qcne (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also forgot about "See also" section and WP:TWODABS. 88.235.212.12 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might think so, but I did not when I declined it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 22 November 2024 review of submission by 185.95.206.18

[edit]

Hello, I need help addressing an issue with an article I wrote for Wikipedia. The article is a biography about Aram Mala Nuri, an activist and journalist who has had a significant impact on society. However, it was flagged for lacking notability. I strongly believe he is notable due to his contributions and influence as an activist and journalist. Could you please review this issue and clarify why it was deemed non-notable? I am committed to improving and editing the article further, but I need this specific concern to be reconsidered. Thank you. Here is the link to the article: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Zhewar_H._Ali/sandbox 185.95.206.18 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Zhewar H. Ali. I haven't looked at your draft, but please note that "notable" has a special meaning for this purpose. "His contributions and influence as an activist and journalist" are irrelevant unless they have been written about by people wholly unconnected with him, and published in reliable sources. Please review all your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42: only sources which meet all three of the criteria can contribute to establishing that the subject is notable. ColinFine (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. If you could take a look at the Resources section, you may take a look at the 2nd source, you can see that he is notable and written about him and his contribution to activities related to society and politics. Regards. Please review it and see that the article can be published. Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. Could you please consider this too. The individual whom the article is about (Aram Mala Nuri) is not related to me, I am just aware of his life attacks and threats that he has been receiving from unknown people. If you could take a look at this report written by an American Organization which is reliable, you may take into account that the article is notable, or should I just focus on that life threat since we have reliable sources available about that particular topic? Thanks for your help. Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is the link to that article about his life threat due to his contribution in Activities, https://cptik.org/articles-for-civil-society/2024/11/8/a-civil-society-activist-shares-his-story-of-death-threats-and-being-stabbed-17-times-1 Zhewar H. Ali (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is being threatened, it is not a good idea to give him a high profile. A ton of bricks 09:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

[edit]

06:02, 23 November 2024 review of submission by 117.230.15.250

[edit]

This draft has 10 sources. 8 sources out of the 10 are from Bollywood Hungama, one from Times Now but still the draft was declined stating that it does not have reliable sources. In that way if we see one of the other shows in StarPlus Advocate Anjali Awasthi also has sources from Bollywood Hungama but still it's draft was moved to mainspace. Why this difference in perspectives by Wikipedia reviewers? 117.230.15.250 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The eight citations to Bollywood Hungama count as a single source. They don't have bylines, so were probably just picked up from press releases or feeds. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Fazil Showkat Tantray

[edit]

Why my Review of newly account rejected all the information about me in article is true and perfect Fazil Showkat Tantray (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fazil Showkat Tantray I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected means that it could not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted(as you already did). Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Chonlawat Yongpraderm

[edit]

Bonadea said that the source is unreliable, but the source that we using is in suki teenoi Wikipedia Thailand. Chonlawat Yongpraderm (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chonlawat Yongpraderm: I think you misunderstood the "decline" notice. That sources must be reliable is only one of the requirements. The text in the notice says

the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)

reliable

secondary

strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting.

Please follow the blue links in the list above, which will tell you what the requirements are. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters little. Blocked for sockpuppetry. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 23 November 2024 review of submission by 134.255.84.144

[edit]

illegal 134.255.84.144 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question we can help with, IP editor? StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Sheikh Ashfakur Rahman

[edit]

zafran brand is my company and i want to add my info wikipedia Sheikh Ashfakur Rahman (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheikh Ashfakur Rahman: I must warn you, you are very close to being blocked for spamming. I have deleted two of your adverts, and another administrator has deleted at least one more. Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for your business. Please stop now.
Also, you must make a paid-editing disclosure as your very next edit. Instructions have been posted on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Chamber Music Queen

[edit]

I would like help in improving reliable sources Chamber Music Queen (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chamber Music Queen! Can I suggest you begin by reading through referencing for beginners and using that to fix up the citations for the sources you currently have? While you're going through them, compare each of them to WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If you have questions after fixing the citations, please come back and ask; we'll be much more helpful if we can access the sources. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Robert T. deGavre

[edit]

I am trying to edit my AfC article on Chester Braddock deGavre. Previously the name of the draft appeared immediately when I logged in. Now the box is blank. When I type in the name of my draft , it appears in small type with a multitude of symbols. Where is the readable version which can be edited? Robert T. deGavre (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert T. deGavre, clicking on the link above (or here: Draft: Chester Braddock deGavre) is taking me to an editable version of the draft. If you click that link, does it get you to the draft that you want to work on? If not, can you be more specific about the blank box, and where you are typing? StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Robert T. deGavre (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:00, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Wangxun2

[edit]

Hello, I'd like to add in a segment about Thomas Hastings starting Path and selling it to Sean Fanning later on. I have the escrow documents to prove it. It's not published in any news article so I cannot cite it, but can I still include this in the Wikipedia page? Wangxun2 (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot provide a citation for something, it cannot be in an article. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:34, 23 November 2024 review of submission by Jag612red

[edit]

Need more reason about why my article was declined so I can fix this. I really want this to be published as the article doesn't exist yet if you can please tell me why that will be great. Also can you fix my map Jag612red (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jag612red, the reviewer has been pretty specific about what you need to include - if you go to your draft and read through the big orange box at the top, you'll see there are links to help you assess whether your sources are independent and secondary (click those words to get to the right guidelines). If you still have questions after reading those, come on back! StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(duplicated question moved to this section:) I dont understand why it was declined. Even though I used source multiple times its reliable and it has depth. It talks about the subject and I don't know what to fix. If anyone can help in what I am doing wrong it would help. Jag612red (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(further question moved to this section:) Can someone fix my map in my infobox. I would appreciate it. Thank you. Jag612red (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jag612red: all bar one of your sources are primary, and close to the subject (ie. not independent). We need to see multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent and have provided significant coverage of the subject.
What are you saying is wrong with the map? Seems fine to me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is bar one whichs one exactly are you talking about Jag612red (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:50, 23 November 2024 review of submission by AnimalNorth

[edit]

My sources are well proven to be reliable & durable sources yet is rejected. Is this a matter of syntax or some other issue.

If after 7 years of the links in this article are solid, why are they not qualified as reliable sources?

Please advise AnimalNorth (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed draft link. Kline • talk • contribs 23:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @AnimalNorth! Links to other Wikipedia articles aren't reliable because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There's a lot of information in that link that will hopefully explain better than I can. What you can do is find the source the other Wikipedia article is citing, make sure it says what the article is telling you it says, and then use that source for your own draft. Just be warned that not all sources are created equal; before relying on a source, assess it against the triple criteria at WP:42, our 'golden rule'. If you still have questions after having a go at that, please do come back and we'll try to help answer them. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

[edit]

00:48, 24 November 2024 review of submission by PostRhythmRecords

[edit]

I don't know what I'm missing. PostRhythmRecords (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. It seems like your article doesn't meet at the requirements to be an actual published article. You are missing: Referencable sources. You need references and citable sources in your article. To make an reference use the ref keys. To learn more about references and, click this link to this article Wikipedia:Citing sources Jag612red (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:09, 24 November 2024 review of submission by MyNameIsGeorgeHale

[edit]

I am not sure if the article for “Kieran Howe” has been properly submitted for review or not. I can’t see it on the list of articles submitted for review. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Kieran_Howe MyNameIsGeorgeHale (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your other post, please only use one forum to seek assistance. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:31, 24 November 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:A4F0:9A00:8F1C:1D8A:2ECB:4557

[edit]

I am not able to use the Move action to change the title of the article to "Southern Lights (sculpture)" How to rename the title? 2603:8000:A4F0:9A00:8F1C:1D8A:2ECB:4557 (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a note of that in the draft. There's no need to move this yet, since it will have to be moved in any case, if/when the draft is accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:44, 24 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D

[edit]

Please help in creating this page. I do not have much knowledge about Wikipedia, so please help in creating this page. Thank you 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 24 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D

[edit]

Please help me in making this page, I am not able to understand what mistake I am doing so please correct my mistake 2409:40E2:1021:3933:6359:AC25:5F3E:524D (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's time to give this a rest? This is at least the fourth title where it has been attempted, and always failed, to create the article. The subject is clearly not notable.
Also, note that when you're blocked, you are not allowed to edit even logged-out. The block applies to you as a person, not just to your user account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:09, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Prince Folorunsho Adegoke

[edit]

Thank you for your response. Please check, I think it meets one of the eight academic-specific criteria because the subject is the immediate past Deputy Vice Chancellor of Redeemer's University and her successor, Ahmed Yerima has an article on Wikipedia which I used as a sample to make her article better. Kindly refer to Editors who can also assist in addressing the issues in the article. PFA (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince Folorunsho Adegoke: being deputy V-C does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #6, if that's what you mean; they would need to be the actual V-C for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:50, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Idk17272727

[edit]

Ariticle draft rejected my draft for an article was rejected for copyright i believe but i wanna know 100% why i dont think i did anything wrong. Idk17272727 (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk17272727 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. You were given a clear reason for the rejection at the top of your draft. We also already have an article about Christmas which details its history. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Sebdocs

[edit]

What is the reason behind this? Sebdocs (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social media platform. This isn't the place for you to be posting a profile of yourself. I placed a warning on your user talk page regarding the creation of autobiographies. Even if it is not an autobiography, you failed to provide any references of any kind to support the notability of "Seb Doherty". Wikipedia does not accept unreferenced drafts. If you can find reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, then include them and there might be a chance of the draft being accepted. Otherwise, no. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 24 November 2024 review of submission by HKFighter

[edit]

Hi, I wish to resubmit this draft but cannot find the submission button. HKFighter (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HKFighter, that's odd. I've submitted it for review for you. @DoubleGrazing any idea what happened to the re-submission button? qcne (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like HKFighter accidentally replaced the Articles for Creation decline templates with the notices from their user talk page. I restored the previous declines – goodness knows the template code is not easy to read if you don't know what it is supposed to look like, and my guess is that HKFighter thought it was the same notice without realising that the talk page version actully looks rather different. --bonadea contributions talk 16:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Arota1612

[edit]

Hello

My article has been refused for not reliable sources but there are books and official media. Can you help me by telling which sources are a problem for you and those who are not so I can finish a good article? I checked other music producer pages and there are very similar Thank you for your kind help Regards Arota1612 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arota1612. The quality of your references is vastly more important than their quantity. Three or four excellent references are far better than dozens of mediocre sources. Most of your references seem to be passing mentions, interviews or event listings. Your draft also has problems with language violating the Neutral point of view policy. One example is An eclectic music-lover from an early age, Lyon found his vocation to music production by flipping over the album covers he loved, followed by unnecessary name dropping. As for articles about other music producers, please name them. Perhaps some of those articles need to be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Made the modifications accordingly. Hope it is good now. Best Arota1612 (talk) 10:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arota1612 It's mandatory that biographic articles have in-line citations for every fact, starting with the date of birth. I notice the top half of the draft has no citations whatsoever: readers therefore cannot verify the information is true. I've declined it for now on that basis: please do re-submit once you've either got citations or removed the uncited paragraphs. qcne (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Jag612red

[edit]

I want to know which sources are primary sources so I can change them. I know not all of them are primary. I can easily fix it so my article can get published. Some of them are secondary so I am confused about which is which. Thank you. Draft:Qubein Center Jag612red (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one which even might be secondary is no 9, which won't display in my region. Almost all of them are published by the university or the architects, and so are not independent. 13 might be independent, but from what I saw before it threw up the paywall, it looked as if it was regurgitating a Press release, and so is also not independent. And Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and should almost never be cited.
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) 21:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I allowed to use at least one primary source or do they all secondary sources and will this mean I will have to redo my wiki page. Jag612red (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The purpose of a citation is to allow a user to verify some information about the subject in the article: nothing else. As long as most of the information comes from secondary sources, a small amount of uncontroversial factual information may be cited to primary sources ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also can I shorten the article because I've seen other articles related to my topic with little to no references and still get it published and I'd also like to know if the city newspaper is primary or secondary because 9 and 13 are news articles with sources in them but one is somehow secondary and the other isn't. Im new to Wikipedia and I just want to clear it up because the Millis Athletic Convocation Center uses primary sources as well and I just want my article to be published Jag612red (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jag612red, please list here the other articles related to my topic with little to no references and still get it published. Maybe some or all of those articles need to be improved or deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The city newspaper" is not primary or secondary: it depends on what it publishes. If it publishes an article which is clearly a regurgitation of a press release, that is primary. If it publishes an interview with the subject, with little commentary, that is primary. If it publishes an article by a named journalist, who is clearly not simply repeating what the subject says, but has done their own investigation and written a commentary, it is secondary. And there can be many intermediate possibilities. ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Unknownkidman

[edit]

I think that theses YouTubers need more clout on there name give them a chance Unknownkidman (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have no interest in giving people clout; we summarize what independent reliable sources say about people that meet our criteria. "YouTubers" are not inherently notable. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unknownkidman, your style of writing is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Our Manual of Style says Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, easily understood language. I can barely understand what you have written. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 24 November 2024 review of submission by Mahreen1212

[edit]

Hi - Why was the updated submission rejected on the following basis " not adequately supported by reliable sources". Every source was independent and government/informative. Does it need to be longer? Mahreen1212 (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahreen1212: Government sources are considered primary sources; we're looking for secondary sources (newspapers, scholarly books, etc.). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:16, 24 November 2024 review of submission by GenesisGSE

[edit]

Help clean up and write this draft GenesisGSE (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to be co-editors. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's the end of the line. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

[edit]

02:35, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Warmtoned

[edit]

Hello! I'm working on a draft for Sophia Laforteza of Katseye, in other words, a member of a band/musical group. As per WP:BANDMEMBER, the individual needs certain independant notability. I'm requesting general information and clarity as to what independant notability exactly means, and how this guideline could be met. This would greatly help the submission of the draft and getting into mainspace, as well as knowing how exactly notable the subject is in regards to getting it accepted on Wikipedia. Cheers! Warmtoned (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had just realized this may not be the right help desk to ask this question, please let me know if that is the case and where I could be redirected! Warmtoned (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warmtoned, please be patient and wait until your draft has been reviewed before asking for assistance at this help desk. The review is the next step. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I had figured this help desk wasn’t the right placement to ask a question about notability as per WP:BANDMEMBER, so I appreciate the clarity. Warmtoned 🕯 talk! 13:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:48, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Ms 2024 baiiiii

[edit]

Beatbot is a top brand in robotic pool cleaner industry, how can a brand be list in wikipedia, thanks Ms 2024 baiiiii (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms 2024 baiiiii Wikipedia isn't a brand listing, neither is it a place for promotion. You need to demonstrate that the company is notable by providing multiple independent reliable sources. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ms 2024 baiiiii, your one sentence draft utterly fails to make the case that this product is notable. Compare it to an article about a somewhat similar household robot Roomba, which is vastly more detailed and has 168 references. Your references, except for one, are terrible. Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, thanks Ms 2024 baiiiii (talk) 08:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 25 November 2024 review of submission by 2400:AC40:61C:3C89:A194:3975:78D3:3FA4

[edit]

Why? 2400:AC40:61C:3C89:A194:3975:78D3:3FA4 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, right now you don't have references, which is a problem. But I don't know why it was rejected. @SafariScribe? -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that was a wrong click of reject instead of decline. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Isaajibola

[edit]

Dear Team,

I am currently working on an article titled Zubaida Umar. Unfortunately, I made an error by redrafting another article with the same content, which was subsequently published. This has resulted in a conflict between the two articles, preventing the first article from being considered for submission, and the submission was ultimately declined.

I have been trying to delete the second draft but have been unsuccessful. As a temporary measure, I recently edited the second draft and deleted all its content before publishing it.

I would like to confirm if this approach is the correct way to resolve the issue so that I do not have conflicting articles requiring merging. My goal is to resubmit the first article on Zubaida Umar for consideration.

Thank you for your assistance. Isaajibola (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY resolved, after user came to the IRC live chat for help. qcne (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Nabil Madi

[edit]

Publishing the article on Wikipedia Nabil Madi (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabil Madi Not as presented, no. no Declined 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have resubmitted it for review. It is unlikely to be accepted, as it is poorly sourced and many parts are unsourced. Wikipedia articles cannot be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. You seem to be writing about yourself, this is highly discouraged, see the autobiography policy. Also, the image of yourself seems to be professionally taken, but you claim it as your own personal work and claim you own the copyright. Please clarify. Typically the photographer owns the copyright. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Sillygoose92

[edit]

how do I make this an article titled Draft: Daniel J. Ballard ? Sillygoose92 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. You can create drafts via the Article Wizard which will start them at a better title than the name of your sandbox, for future reference. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:44, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Hobodubo

[edit]

I’m new here I need assistance Hobodubo (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that the person you have wrote about meets our WP:NOTABILITY criteria, @Hobodubo qcne (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 25 November 2024 review of submission by OgTheig69

[edit]

why si this rejected? i dont understand. i have references. it has all the ingo on how this word started within the Twitch gaming community. OgTheig69 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept AI-generated drafts about dictionary definitions. Maybe go to Urban Dictionary. qcne (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Weasleyrian

[edit]

I am seeking guidance regarding my draft of SmarterMail, which was rejected on November 22 by @Bonadea. I believe the rejection may have been premature. I have been addressing the concerns raised and believe that the topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. Could you advise on how I can appeal the rejection and continue improving the draft? Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Weasleyrian (talk) 14:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first step to appeal a rejection is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly, please use their user talk page. You can continue editing the draft regardless. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before appealing to the reviewer make sure you have at least three high quality sources that discuss SmarterMail in-depth with significant coverage, otherwise you will be will wasting everyone's time. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI to reviewers, there's lots of discussion on the user talk page. This is a difficult one where the user has been assigned this task by their professor. qcne (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weasleyrian: It looks very clear from the draft history, the discussion on your user talk page, and the sources (including several that had been removed from the draft) that the software is not independently notable – and since the company creating the software isn't notable either, I don't see how there could be an article about it. I am very sorry that you were set an impossible assignment, but that doesn't change anything in terms of whether the software is notable or not.
What do you mean when you said the rejection was premature? The draft had been declined six times by three different reviewers before I saw it, so I don't really understand the "premature" comment. --bonadea contributions talk 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I referred to the rejection as premature, I meant that I was still in the process of revising and rewriting the content at the time. The company and its software are notable, as their products have been widely recognized. Additionally, a search on Google reveals books and articles discussing the product and the company. I was in the process of reviewing these materials to ensure they met the criteria for reliable and independent sources. Weasleyrian (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Weasleyrian. You resubmitted at at 2024-11-21 21:02:36, and @Bonadearejected it eleven and a half hours later, at 2024-11-22 08:38:10. You're perfectly entitled to continue editing after submitting, as you did; but you had asked for a review, which Bonadea gave. Why did you resubmit if it was not ready for review?
I am sorry that your professor appears to have set you an impossible task. Has your professor read WP:Education program/Educators?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:01, 25 November 2024 review of submission by KellyWendorf

[edit]

Cannot publish page KellyWendorf (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KellyWendorf: that's because this draft has been rejected. Rejection means the end of the road.
And in case you haven't been made aware of this yet, we very strongly discourage autobiographies; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @KellyWendorf. I have rejected it as you are not notable and do not merit an article on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
It seems you may need more notable sources to publish us. Here are links to articles that feature Kelly Wendorf:
MSN Travel
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/tripideas/santa-fe-new-mexico-travel-guide-a-soulful-journey-of-self-love-wellness-in-the-land-of-enchantment/ar-AA1ttYzE?cvid=8ab2f3dbf62b4caef3a509f729eb9358&ei=8#
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/19/style/equus-horses.html
Vogue
https://www.vogue.com/article/how-equine-therapy-can-help-us-face-our-fears
Kindred Magazine
https://kindredmedia.org/2021/03/finding-a-bridge-to-indigenous-wisdom-and-worldview-an-interview-with-kelly-wendorf/
The Wall Street Journal
https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-horse-therapy-make-you-a-better-at-your-job-1543962433
Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinaliao/2018/10/31/a-look-at-equus-an-equine-program-thatll-change-your-life/?sh=7f3fec244734
Is this enough to prove that we should have a Wikipedia Page?
Link to website as well press/podcast page
https://www.equusinspired.com/press KellyWendorf (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, nope @KellyWendorf. None of those sources provide significant coverage or are independent. qcne (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing that you're missing, @KellyWendorf, is that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Unless you can find several sources each meeting the triple criteria in WP:42, there is literally nothing that can go into an article about you. ColinFine (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Chethu0728

[edit]

The article written for a person is a doctor by profession. He has done excellant contribution to the society. He is a receipient of B.C. Roy Presidential award in 2018. Please let me know what changes to be done for the approval of the article in Wikipedia. Chethu0728 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chethu0728 Please see the criteria for inclusion at WP:NPERSON. You will need to totally re-write this draft as currently it is just a resume. Wikipedia does not host resumes. qcne (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Sunflowerlilies

[edit]

Hi there! Could you tell me what I need to work on? I'm not quite sure what you mean. Sunflowerlilies (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sunflowerlilies, your draft has a lot of content and a single source. Is all the content from that one source? We would usually require at least three independent sources to prove that a person meets our definition of "notable". qcne (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Everything is from a single source. Sunflowerlilies (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not even clear what that 'source' is, or whether it indeed is a valid source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://kurdcollect.com/index.php/%D9%85%D8%AD%DB%95%D9%85%DB%95%D8%AF_%D8%A6%DB%95%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86_%D8%A6%D8%A7%D8%BA%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D9%87%DB%95%D9%85%DB%95%D9%88%DB%95%D9%86%D8%AF_%DB%8C%DB%95%D9%83%DB%95%D9%85_%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C_%D9%82%DB%95%D8%B2%D8%A7%DB%8C_%DA%86%DB%95%D9%85%DA%86%DB%95%D9%85%D8%A7%DA%B5
Here is the single source. Sunflowerlilies (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunflowerlilies: okay, thank you. For future reference, if you have an online source, cite it; this makes it much easier for reviewers (and readers) to verify the source. And if you're citing an offline source, you need to provide sufficient bibliographical detail so that the source can be reliably identified; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this. Finally, sources must be published, which "Interviews and questions from the descendants of Muhammad Amin Agha Hamwand" does not sound like. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:06, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Wikigeekgod99

[edit]

which items are problematic vs. unacceptable? Wikigeekgod99 (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem is that basically all of the useful sourcing is about the documentary; there's almost no content here that's about Juson, outside of a basic description of who she is. You may have the framework for an article about the documentary here, not Juson specifically.
The other problem is that even if you're just writing about the documentary, there needs to be a massive paring down of the sources. Independent reviews of the documentary that are in large publications and aren't part of interviews are good. However, there's a lot of sources here that do nothing to help the article; Wikipedia can not be used as a source, nor are things like schedules that list a viewing time for the film. Flooding an article with anything that is a passing mention of the subject is completely counterproductive; it's a bit like washing the dishes by flooding your kitchen with a fire hose. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 25 November 2024 review of submission by 216.11.33.210

[edit]

What can I do to get it approved? I am trying to publish this for a reason, not just for fun. 216.11.33.210 (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if your reason is anything other than "to help Wikipedia reach its aim of summarising what independent reliable sources say about notable subjects", then you have not understood what Wikipedia is. ColinFine (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 25 November 2024 review of submission by Thisisnot1621

[edit]

Not sure how I would make this not sound like advertisement. Thisisnot1621 (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's academic, since it was rejected, but Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about an organization and its offerings or views. A Wikipedia article about an organization 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) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 25 November 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

[edit]

Hi I have edited article and appreciate feedback, thank you JanaFerrume (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JanaFerrume: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Nothing you have helps a whit to show she is notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

[edit]

00:39, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Monetbaer

[edit]

I am trying to publish this page on Adam Lynn and I think the submission was declined because it appeared that I had a financial stake. I would love help updating/editing this so that it complies with Wikipedia's terms and does not come across as biased. Thanks! Monetbaer (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monetbaer: No, it was declined because you have uncited claims in the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:36, 26 November 2024 review of submission by ShrimpInAHotTub

[edit]

There’s a box around the “Size” section and I don’t know how to remove it ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ShrimpInAHotTub I've fixed it for you - there was an extra space before the text, causing it to display as code. I've also cleaned up the references. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ShrimpInAHotTub (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:32, 26 November 2024 review of submission by 118.221.204.69

[edit]

ㅁ 118.221.204.69 (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sources were provided in the draft, nor does Google provide any clarification, at least as a discrete, named entity in itself. It just looks like a long sequence of amino acids. Assuming the name itself isn't a joke because of it's length (I would imagine if this were real, the fairly standard abbreviations would be used), sources have to be provided for an article to exist, and nobody that has edited this draft over the last three years have provided any such sourcing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 26 November 2024 review of submission by WWWedit

[edit]

My submission was rejected, and I completely understand and agree with the decision. It read more like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article. One of the challenges is that solid, documented sources about communal ovens in Morocco are not readily available, as these traditional facilities are deeply woven into local communities and often lack systematic documentation. However, we have to start somewhere, and in many cases, we must rely on oral histories—accounts from older generations who lived through and witnessed these traditions firsthand. For instance, Farrane Mama is not just a communal oven but a cultural monument, and its story deserves to be documented for future generations. What do you suggest is the best way to go with this one. Thanks. WWWedit (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles here require sources, and there's no way around that, so it'll be nearly impossible to find an article if sources can't be found. If that is the case, I would suggest that if you would like to spread awareness of this sort of thing, writing about it on your own website is a great way to get people to read about it. And if the topic further interests researchers who happen to read your page, perhaps some will produce more written research that will someday be the basis for an article here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:58, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Ngiphondims

[edit]

I'm a bigginner Ngiphondims (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a specific question? If it's about your WP:AUTOBIO, you've provided no sources that come close to establishing that you're notable, in Wikipedia's sense. In fact, it looks like you took a basic template and then ignored half of the template, leaving things like "citation to reliable source, print or e, goes here" and "Important book to know about" in the draft. This draft was rejeccted, meaning that it will not be reconsidered at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:43, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Ghaloit1983

[edit]

as i am new to all these and want to contribute to wikipedia, but as i know about my topics and i am well sure for the information i shared about "Asian Education Group". but still the rejections happening again and again. Still i am eagerly exited to know the sugestions and need help to publish my first article successfully. Ghaloit1983 (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaloit1983, your draft has no complete sentences. It tells us almost nothing about the topic. It fails to establish that the topic is notable. It bears no resemblance to an actual encyclopedia article. It is more like a business database entry, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you work for the Asian Education Group, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID as well as WP:COI.
The draft was declined twice and now rejected, this means it will not be considered further. Literally the entire content of the article was "Asian Education Group, Noida, UP, India. Established in November 1986, Owned by Dr. Sandeep Marwah, Founder Film City, Noida, UP, India". Wikipedia is not a directory of things that exist. This is an encyclopedia which has articles that summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like a notable organization or business.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it isn't the only or even best way someone can contribute. We have millions of articles, most of which need work. It is highly recommended that new users first spend much time to get experience and knowledge of how Wikipedia operates by first editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as using the new user tutorial. It's possible to be a succssful editor and never write a single new article. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the valuable inputs, surely i will try to write new articles with keeping these points in mind. Ghaloit1983 (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:54, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Talosofficial2

[edit]

Hello sir! i need help because i am keep getting rejected what can i do to fix it ? i fixed the part of advert and added Reference Talosofficial2 (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Talosofficial2: you have not been rejected, but your draft has.
I'm afraid your experience is rather typical for people who come to Wikipedia and immediately try to do the most challenging task there is for newcomers: to create a new article. It's like somebody picking up a tennis racket for the first time, and immediately entering a major competition, or having your first violin lesson and trying to give a public recital: not only don't you know how to do it, you probably won't even understand the feedback you get.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
My quick summary of how to create an article:
  1. Look for sources which are reliable, independent, and have significant coverage of the subject. Ignore anything written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates. Ignore anything based on a press release or interview with the subject or their associates. Ignore anything which is on social media, forums, wikis (including Wikipedia). Ignore anything self-published, or published by an unknown or vanity press. Ignore anything that does not mention the subject. Ignore anything which does not have at least a few paragraphs about the subject. Ignore anything where those few paragraphs about the subject are obviously copied from the subject's biography or website. See WP:42 for more details.
  2. If you do not have at least three sources that meet all those requirements, then give up: you are wasting your time trying to create this article.
  3. If you do have three or more sources, then forget everything that you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say. Some of what they say might be trivial and not appropriate to an encyclopaedia, and you can leave those out. But make sure that you don't leave anything out just because you disagree with it.
ColinFine (talk) 13:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand everything. I fixed all the issues that caused my submission to be rejected. However, I was blocked from resubmitting because:
Submission rejected on 26 November 2024 by KylieTastic (talk):
This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Talosofficial2 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Talosofficial2: that's not a question; was there something you wanted to ask?
But yes, you're right, this draft has been rejected, which means resubmission is no longer possible. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its a question what does it mean with:
This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia Talosofficial2 (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Talosofficial2: it means that even after multiple reviews, the draft provides no evidence that the subject is notable, and it will therefore not be considered further. For most subjects notability is evidenced by citing multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, and have provided significant coverage of it. This draft cites no such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly a very new venture and it is way too soon for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is for subjects that are already notable, this looks more like an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote. The site does not even have it's own domain just what appears to be a free hosting sub domain. It has six basic blog posts and claims only "23 Developers Already Onboard". As the site links to what appears to be your YouTube channel I am also assuming this is an undeclared Conflict of interest. KylieTastic (talk) 15:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Deathfrog10

[edit]

I really want this to be posted Deathfrog10 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have provided 0 sources despite writing a lot and after three declines. Therefore, it's been rejected and won't be considered any further. Additionally (see also the comments on that draft), its not written in the format that readers would expect. JuniperChill (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Emmasaltbox

[edit]

Hi, my article was turned down because the listed citations were linked with the topic (Lexercise). However, I don't believe this to be true. I found external, third-party writeups of the topic. Why was this denied? Thanks, Emma Emmasaltbox (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmasaltbox: the sources are blogs and the like, quite possibly sponsored or some form of churnalism. I don't think any of them are fully independent, and they certainly don't come across as particularly reliable. I'd say this was declined correctly.
What is your relationship with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually came across Lexercise through one of these blogs and have since used their free testing. I do think these third party reviews should not cause a denial of the page based on a guess that they might be connected, especially since there are no affiliate links on the pages or anything that would point to this being the case. Emmasaltbox (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Deathfrog10

[edit]

Can’t submit anymore please help Deathfrog10 (talk) 18:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathfrog10: that's correct; this draft has been rejected, which means the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathfrog10: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, no matter how often you remove the decline/reject notices. No sources, no article, no debate. (You need to actually cite your sources here.) This article also reads like a press release. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 26 November 2024 review of submission by Tepojama

[edit]

Sorry if this is a silly question but can someone tell me if I need to do anything to clean up the formatting of my references or if they're good as-is? Thank you! Tepojama (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they should be formatted in accordance with WP:REFB, instead of just a Bare URL. JuniperChill (talk) 21:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:11, 26 November 2024 review of submission by JohnHapi

[edit]

Why can’t my page get accepted to the Wikipedia Article? I have sources of pictures, ancient-medieval paintings, ancient-medieval art works, statues, 16th-19th century art works, many cultural relics, historical objects stored in museums, historical clothes stored in museums, modern art works portrayal of the historical past, and many more. I study China-NorthEast Asia History for many years. I will send it in the MiaoFuk Wikipedia. MiaoFuk is a clothing very similar to HanFuk (HanFu on Wikipedia) and it’s also has GiJzoang/QiZhuang clothings (there is a QiZhuang Wikipedia) MiaoFuk is a Chinese clothing style worn by another ethnicity. I have a lot of sources, I will just send it in later. Chinese-NorthEast Asia History is not really taught in the United States and that’s okay because I can send in more works. Wikipedia has a lot of American History compared to any other Worldwide Histories because it’s an American invention. JohnHapi (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnHapi you had six oppotunities to include sources yet you didn't, and the draft was rejected as a result. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

[edit]

04:58, 27 November 2024 review of submission by Otaneka

[edit]

My page was declined due to missing footnotes. I'm unsure of how to add the footnotes. Can an experienced editor complete this task? Otaneka (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otaneka: nobody else can really do that for you, at least not without considerable difficulty, because we don't know from which source each piece of information came from. The process is explained at WP:REFB, please see that for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:47, 27 November 2024 review of submission by Venugo

[edit]

Please merge this page with Devendra Rajesh Kothe new page or already existing subject Venugo (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Venugo: there is no miraculous Merge-a-matic® article merger, it's just a case of manually editing the content to selectively insert information (and references) from one article to another; or, if you like, improving and supplementing one article with information appearing in the other. In any case, this isn't something we do here at the help desk, that's your job (or the job of whoever wishes such merging to be done). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:32, 27 November 2024 review of submission by HewRamen

[edit]

I have a project that makes a new topic and I chose to make a new card game that was released 1 year ago UnionArena most of the resources are on the official site I don't know how to find other sites that can Improve my topic which got declined HewRamen (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HewRamen: Wikipedia doesn't publish articles on things that merely exist (with some exceptions, like major geographical features or most species), but rather on things that have been previously covered in the media. Wikipedia articles then (mostly) summarise what media outlets, and more specifically reliable and independent secondary sources, have said. If such sources don't exist, then they cannot be summarised, and a Wikipedia article on the subject cannot be created; this is described as the subject not being "notable" enough for publication. I expect this is what we're dealing with here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 27 November 2024 review of submission by Commercialindustrial

[edit]

Hello, I’m seeking guidance on how to improve this draft. It has been rejected multiple times for reading like an advertisement.

I have made several attempts to rewrite it with a more neutral tone, but I’m struggling to get it approved. To me, it seems neutral, but I may be missing something. Could anyone point out specific sentences or sections that come across as promotional? I would appreciate your feedback so I can make the necessary edits. Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Commercialindustrial: this draft has now been rejected (after multiple earlier declines), and will therefore not be considered further. Hence, there seems little point in analysing it further.
You have stated that you are not being paid to edit on this subject. In that case, could you please describe, in your own words, your relationship with Quintessential? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand that the draft has been rejected multiple times, and I appreciate the concerns raised. My intention with this draft is to provide a factual and encyclopaedic entry for the company, relying on reliable, independent sources that establish its notability.
To clarify, I do not have any connection to the company, nor am I being paid for this submission. My sole aim is to contribute verifiable information about a subject that, in my view, meets Wikipedia’s notability standards due to significant independent coverage in reputable publications and its contributions to the industry. Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Commercialindustrial: just to clarify, this draft has not been rejected multiple times; it has been declined multiple times, and rejected once. The difference may seem pedantic, but is actually substantive: decline means that the draft can be resubmitted once the decline reasons have been addressed; rejection means it cannot.
You registered your user account, and as your very first edit created a draft on Quintessential in your sandbox User:Commercialindustrial/sandbox, followed shortly after that by creating the same at Draft:Quintessential (company). To date, your entire edit history has to do with Quintessential. Yet you have no relationship with them. Well okay then, if you say so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification regarding the difference between “declined” and “rejected.” I appreciate your explanation, as it helps me better understand the process and policies.
Regarding my account activity, you are correct that my edits have focused on this draft. This is because I registered my account specifically to contribute information about this topic I believe is deserving of an encyclopaedic entry. While my editing experience is limited, I am eager to learn and improve to ensure my contributions align with Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you again for your time and assistance. Commercialindustrial (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're just wondering how you came to edit about this topic- you didn't pick it at random to edit about. Do you intend to edit about other topics? 331dot (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 27 November 2024 review of submission by Maumau1978

[edit]

Dear help desk team,

I would like to provide better source for my draft on Automad. Therefore I have the two following questions:

1. Is it ok to use references in other languages. In example having an article written in English that references a webpage written in German? 2. I can see that articles about related subjects in the same space provide a similar set of sources such as the pages of Drupal, Bolt, CMSimple, Grav, Made-Simple, just to name a few. More can be found here in the PHP section. What is the main difference here and how can I improve my article to be notable?

Thank you in advance and all the best! Maumau1978 (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References do not need to be in English, as long as they meet all other requirements for being reliable sources. It's not a good idea to use any random article as a model or example, as those too could be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on the presence of others that themselves may be inappropriate. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been examined by the community. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 27 November 2024 review of submission by 118.69.188.172

[edit]

Can you advise what I should do improve this article and meet Wikipedia standards? 118.69.188.172 (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback. Please see the messages left by the previous reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1259841818"