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


December 29

[edit]

07:03, 29 December 2024 review of submission by RasaPetrauskaite

[edit]

Every time I try to make an edit and publish the edit, I get an error message that says that content provided was not properly deflated. This might have happened because I tried to paste a table from a website. But now I cannot undo it and the error message always shows up and prevents me from making any changes. I would like to edit this draft of an article. Could you please suggest how I can move forward with that and resolve the error message? RasaPetrauskaite (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RasaPetrauskaite: I've just made a minor edit to this draft without any problems. Perhaps the issue is local to your browser – try restarting, and maybe clearing your cache if that doesn't help? If the issue persists, you are more likely to get competent advice at WP:VPT where folks who know technical stuff hang out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 29 December 2024 review of submission by The27thAlphabet

[edit]

Can i please request help to evaluate this draft. I have added the notable sources and links. but do help in making this better for submission. The27thAlphabet (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The27thAlphabet: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. You will get an evaluation when you resubmit the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've only linked to basic profiles and daily business news, that do nothing to confirm anything other than Gupta having those specific jobs. Notability requires a good deal more than this. You need to be looking for independent, reliable sources that are about Gupta. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Gidan Fasaha

[edit]

Hy, Please Can You Assist Me Check The Errors On This New Page That I am Adding? It Got Rejected. Gidan Fasaha (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gidan, this was rejected as not a single source was provided to indicate that the subject was notable. While there are nine references, not a single one of them ever mentions Jauro as far as I can tell, let alone confirming any fact asserted in the biography. Just as an example, look at the first paragraph after the lede. Neither Jauro's parents names, the ethnic group they belong to, where they are from, or his father's occupation, have any sourcing whatsoever. The only source provided goes simply to provide more information about the Yandang not the subject of the article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Gidan Fasaha. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have published about the subject, and very little else. If you do not have any reliable independent sources, there is literally nothing which you can put into an article. Please see your first article. ColinFine (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:09, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Manikingr

[edit]

Greetings and respect This article, which is about an Iranian artificial intelligence startup called Alef, has been completely edited and is written in an unbiased language without any advertisements for anyone's benefit.The sources of this article are written from official and completely independent media in Iran. But unfortunately, some Wikipedia editors have monopolized the creation of articles and do not allow the creation of new articles and the improvement of Wikipedia. Manikingr (talk) 18:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
This process is usually voluntary. If you wish to disregard what you are being told by more experienced people, you can move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, but you risk it being nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Jasminmusicz

[edit]

im a biggner so kindly assist me what is my msitake and how to fix it Jasminmusicz (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Your draft has no sources that show you are a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasminmusicz, your highly promotional draft biography of a 13 year old child is completely unreferenced and in violation of multiple Policies and guidelines. Most significantly, it violates Verifiability and the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasminmusicz: I would seriously reconsider whether the price of a Wikipedia article (i.e. permanent loss of your privacy) is worth it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:39, 29 December 2024 review of submission by JIMMY OFUOYAn14

[edit]

please what can i do to make my submission to be accepted JIMMY OFUOYAn14 (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do. Please stop creating new accounts to publish your AI generated autobiography. --bonadea contributions talk 20:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, previously blocked accounts include JIMMY OFUOYAN10 (talk · contribs) and Jimmy ofuo (talk · contribs). --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 29 December 2024 review of submission by Sam241224

[edit]

Hi everyone, I recently submitted a wiki page for review and it got rejected for overly cheese language or unreliable sources, something like that. Things gone too wrong and the page was declined. I need help with improving it if possible. Please guide me as I am new here and if its a dead end, that's also ok. just let me know. thanks. Sam241224 (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the reviewer noted, at one point schools were inherently notable, but that is no longer the case. Schools must meet WP:ORG just as any other organization. You should not be describing the school and its offerings, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school. If you have no such sources, then the school does not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you @331dot for your swift and detailed reply,
Now I got it, Its not what we want to say, but what reliable and Independent sources said that we need to rewrite / convey. Correct me if I am wrong. Can you please check the references and tell me if they qualify?
thanks for helping me understand whole process Sam241224 (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The activities of the school do nof confer notability; there needs to be sources with significant coverage of the school and what makes it important/significant/influential as a school. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content like "Scientia emphasizes a balanced approach to learning, integrating technology and modern teaching methods to prepare students for the challenges of a dynamic world. Known for its commitment to community engagement, the school actively participates in initiatives promoting environmental sustainability and social welfare, fostering holistic development in its students." is just blatant advertising and would never be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, understood. thank you for checking the contents and pointing out. @Theroadislong Sam241224 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, got it. So, how can I start a new page about something else. Lets leave this page here. I want to contribute but I don't think the language I use is right, I need to improve on that before I start working on anything else.
thanks @331dot Sam241224 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can create additional sandboxes(User:Sam241224/sandbox 2) or you can use the Article Wizard. Please know that creating new articles is not the best or only way you can contribute. We have millions of articles that need help, and editing those will help you gain experience before you attempt the difficult task of creating a new article. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will try to contribute to some other articles, maybe something with structure or easy tweaks before going after a big task as you suggested. I am not sure about the language I need to use in wiki content, It will take time for me to get things, but I have started to get the grip on things like my profile, sandbox and talk page, user page and such things. But, its a long journey, from front Wikipedia looks so simple, but from inside so many things are going on. Amazing.
thanks for putting in your valuable time :) Sam241224 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam241224 my genuine advice to new editors is to start out improving existing articles, because writing a new article from scratch is really hard! Like trying to perform in an orchestra when you've only just picked up an instrument. Your Wikipedia Homepage will have some suggested edits you can make at various levels of difficulty. qcne (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne, thanks for your suggestion. I will try to find something beginner friendly on my homepage. Any suggestion on matching my tone with Wikipedia standards? Sam241224 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Practice, really. You should only be paraphrasing or summarising what reliable sources say, and make sure when you do you write in a dry style. This could also be useful: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch qcne (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, but what is 'dry style'?
thanks for the link :) Sam241224 (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to really give examples, its something that you pick up once you've done enough editing. The tone should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate. Pretend you're writing an autopsy. Wikipedia only ever describes, never leads the reader or engages them. qcne (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah, now I got it. Things are becoming clear now. Difficult for me but will try, thank you. Sam241224 (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

[edit]

01:54, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Jogershok

[edit]

Why does this not meet the goals and expectations of this WikiProject?

She is listed in the Charlie Project as well: https://charleyproject.org/case/kathleen-ann-shea Jogershok (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogershok: there is insufficient evidence that the subject is notable. Also, the Charley Project is a primary source, and as such contributes nothing towards notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:24, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Sivans1734

[edit]

My draft was declined for not citing reliable sources but the only spot in which I didn't cite sources was the Early and personal life section which I have all the information from the subject herself and it is not anywhere on the internet. Sivans1734 (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sivans1734 but not one of those sources are reliable or independent meaning they are not of any value on showing us how they are notable enough to meet the standard of inclusion in a global encyclopedia. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sivans1734. In addition to what McMatter said, please note that all information in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable from a pubished source. Unpublished information, no matter who it is from, may never be included in an article. A further point 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. ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:32, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Toothpickdog

[edit]

Hi, This festival is happening in March, and about now is the time when people are likely to be googling and buying tickets. I'm hoping some will find their way to this article and be able to expand it - particularly to add missing headline acts from past years. Almost two months ago my draft submission was declined as I had only a few poorly sourced references. I've added a lot since then, but they're not great quality - there just aren't many references available on the internet that I can find. Thanks for your help in getting this article online! Don. Toothpickdog (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toothpickdog: do you have a question about your draft, or the review process?
Please note that sources don't have to be online; offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the requirements in terms of reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thanks for your response. I guess I don't really have a question, other than to say, "What do I need to do to get this online?" If it's just a matter of being patient, that's OK; but if the draft is going to need additional review cycles, then I fear we'll have missed the peak 2025 interest period.
Thanks too for the tip about offline sources. As chance would have it, some old Havelock community paper documents were unearthed today, so I now feel more confident about using them here. Toothpickdog (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:35, 30 December 2024 review of submission by EclipseExpress

[edit]

Can you add more to this page? EclipseExpress (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EclipseExpress: if you're asking someone here at the help desk (and/or at the Teahouse) to co-edit the draft with you, then the answer is no, that's not something we get involved in. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Jadan? Moreno

[edit]

I'm not sure why I can't publish this page. Jadan? Moreno (talk) 05:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jadan? Moreno: because it has been rejected (twice), for the reasons given in the notices and comments. TL;DNR = we don't publish promotional autobiographies with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Cian Nollaig

[edit]

Hi, I hope all is well. I am finding the feedback unclear for the article's sources being declined. When I compare the sources used to similar pages based in the region; my article uses third-person citations whereas the other pages cite articles from either their own websites or websites their companies own. Cian Nollaig (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Nollaig Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits. There are numerous ways inappropriate content can get past us, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate content, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. It is possible for inappropriate content to exist, even for years, we can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, you can identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft still has some unsourced sections. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Dcbeatz

[edit]

This is very interesting. Since this rejection, I spoke to the company. They said they have been bombarded with requests for them to pay more than 1000 dollars to get a wikipedia article published. This is 100% part of a corrupt system in wikipedia! Dcbeatz (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dcbeatz, that is an unfortunate ongoing scam by scammers who are not affiliated with Wikipedia. Please carefully read (and show the company) Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. qcne (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a scam that Wikipedia has nothing to do with. Scammers monitor this and other pages to then contact the subjects of drafts. 331dot (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcbeatz: it's also interesting that you're on speaking terms with the company behind this app. This very much suggests a conflict of interest, which needs to be disclosed; I will post instructions on your talk page.
If you speak with them again, warn them against paying any money to anyone. Not only is this almost certain to be a scam, as already pointed out, the company is also unlikely to get anything for their money. Even if these folks are bona fide editors who know what they're doing, there is nothing anyone can do to guarantee that an article will be published, or more to the point, that it will remain so. And there's every chance they are very far from bona fide. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 30 December 2024 review of submission by 43.225.193.153

[edit]

How to add more references when it is not available in Web, although I can find is just few social media profiles along research paper publications 43.225.193.153 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Sources do not need to be online, see Referencing for Beginners to learn how to write references. Social media profiles do not establish that the person is notable; an article should primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the person. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Microesoft1212

[edit]

Hello, while writing the article for this locality, I've come to the conclusion that it's hard to find sources that directly mention the locality with respect to another thing. For example, articles rarely mention the nearest metro station, it is something you'd find on google maps. Therefore, citing for statements like these has become a challenge. Therefore, in order to still have a citation, I've cited articles that vaguely have the information that I'm looking for. In order to get the article published, would it be prefferable if I just deleted the points for which getting a citation is very hard, thereby reducing the size of the article or should I continue with my vague citations. Thank you Microesoft1212 (talk) 17:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Microesoft1212: everything in the draft must come directly from reliable published sources. If you are writing what you know about the subject, and then struggling to find sources to support what you've written, you're going about it WP:BACKWARD. Also, you're probably engaging in either original research or synthesis, which is not allowed. Please stick to only that information which can be clearly backed up by sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 30 December 2024 review of submission by UtpalSarmaAssam

[edit]

Reason for not publishing UtpalSarmaAssam (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability. qcne (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UtpalSarmaAssam, vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, in violation of policies Verifiability and Biographies of living people. Cullen328 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Drtasadukitoo

[edit]

I want to create new article Drtasadukitoo (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drtasadukitoo Your first attempt is all about you, but you fail WP:BIO, and have written an advert for yourself. You have confused Wikipedia with a website that is interested in your life and achievements. Please use a résumé site like LinkedIn, and note WP:NOTLINKEDIN 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:53, 30 December 2024 review of submission by SabrinaKJones

[edit]

I created an article and received feedback to make it more useful and make sure everything features citations. I updated it on 12/24/24 but have not had any response since then if the article is OK now, or if it requires more edits. It is not published yet. SabrinaKJones (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do pre-review reviews; for feedback, please submit it again. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 30 December 2024 review of submission by Moulyags

[edit]

I've noticed that some live pages on Wikipedia seem to lack sufficient sources or detailed references, yet they remain active. This has caused some confusion about the criteria for article approval. While I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's notability and sourcing guidelines, I would appreciate clarification on how these standards are consistently applied. It would also help to know if my draft for Kannada News Today meets the requirements or needs further improvement. Moulyags (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moulyags This is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can. As such, inappropriate articles can and do get by us, for many reasons(one big reason is that this process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed). We can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate content. If you want to help us, please identify these other inappropriate articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. See Other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please disclose your relationship with Kannada news, as required by policy(see WP:COI and WP:PAID) as you claim to have personally created its logo. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

[edit]

00:16, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Blitzite2

[edit]

It's hard to get in-depth sources when it hasn't been professionally reviewed a lot. The game has received a lot of critical acclaim, with $1M of revenue approximately. Blitzite2 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It likely doesn't merit an article, then- reviews are usually how games/films/books etc, merit articles. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Blitzite2. Revenue is irrelevant. Critical acclaim is relevant - provided it is published in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

Recently a fellow editor(@User:Buckshot06) already helped me publish my draft as Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps). May I ask what will happen to the draft? P.S. I turned 7th Marine Brigade into a redirect to Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts get deleted automatically if they are not edited in six months.
If you are the only editor who has worked on a draft, you can request its deletion by pasting {{db-author}} at the top; but other editors have worked on Draft:7th Marine Brigade, so that option is not available in this case. You can request its deletion at WP:MFD, but it's probably not worth it for a draft. I do suggest you withdraw it from review though, so as not to take up a reviewer's time. You can simply remove th most recent e {{afc submission}} template from the top. ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the draft was technically never reviewed? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac: this draft was reviewed, and declined, once, on Nov 29; but not reviewed again since your resubmission a few days later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So basically it was never re-reviewed
Doesn't really matter because in the end it was published anyways but yeah Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was awaiting new review. We currently have c 1,800 pending drafts in the system, with wait times up to 8 weeks or so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok understood
Removed the review banner and added a comment saying that it is already published Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:59, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Mohan1357

[edit]

Please kindly assist in working on my article for publication on wikipedia page Mohan1357 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan1357 Hello, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please see the message left by the reviewer as to what needs to be done; we're not here to be co-editors, just to give advice. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Brown Balloons

[edit]

This draft page has been rejected by one of the editors. I already provided factual information and reliable sources. Brown Balloons (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems that this person is not notable as Wikipedia defines a notable person. This is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:58, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Lorenzo Lwanga

[edit]

Hello,

I could use a live walk-through on how to edit a few things. Am having trouble with my first article. Lorenzo Lwanga (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lorenzo Lwanga. Most people who try to create an article as the first thing they do on Wikipedia (or nearly the first) have trouble with their article.
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.
Specifically about your draft: like most people who haven't spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. First find your sources - and make sure they meet the triple criteria in WP:42. Then, if you have enough sources, forget everything that you know personally about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say about them. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Nandy Movies

[edit]
I have made edits to my article, provided sources, and references, my article has not yet been accepted. I don't understand why . I request clarification please help me. Nandy Movies (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nandy Movies: presumably we're talking about  Courtesy link: Draft:Bhaggyolokkhi? It hasn't been accepted, because it is very poorly referenced, and therefore provides no evidence that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Unreleased films hardly ever are notable, so you should probably wait until the film has come out and received some reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nandy Movies As an unreleased film, it is likely too soon for there to be an article about it. Press releases do not contribute to our notability criteria for films. Wait for some in-depth coverage from reliable film critics before re-submitting. qcne (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Judging by your username, you have a conflict of interest in this subject. That needs to be disclosed. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Candus76

[edit]

I'm translating a wikipedia page (https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/தஞ்சை_க._பொன்னையா_பிள்ளை) and I have added the same sources added there, but my request to turn it into an article is denied because I need more references (which I don't have). What do I do? Candus76 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Candus76. Each language Wikipedia project is different, with different policies and guidelines. The English Wikipedia has the strictest reference requirements out of all the various language projects.
If those sources do not meet our criteria for inclusion, and there are no other sources to be found (remember, you can use offline sources as long as they are published and you provide a full citation) then I am afraid the topic does not merit an article on the English Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, thank you for clearing that up so fast! I'll try searching for more sources :) Candus76 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best of luck - as long as the sources are published and accessible to a reader (even via an offline library or archive) then it is okay to use. qcne (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Artennina

[edit]

Could you please tell me detailed what I should do? I ám a decent person who has the best intentions with this article and I only wat the best for it! Only the sometimes written comments (as English is not my mother language) are not easy to understand. Please give us another moment. Artennina (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not fixed the issues identified by reviewers, including not disclosing your conflict of interest. Your references do not establish that this person meets our definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Lightningbox14

[edit]

why was it rejected was it too short Lightningbox14 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightningbox14: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 31 December 2024 review of submission by DesertMouse26

[edit]

Hi there - this article was submitted for review and it wasn't accepted. The listed reason was that "the draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." I see that there's an existing page on the same subject in Japanese (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shokz). Does that serve as proof that this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article? DesertMouse26 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because different Wikipedias have different policies. What matters is if our policies are met. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:38, 31 December 2024 review of submission by Henrilebec

[edit]

Notability question It's not clear why scientific notability is different from say "celebrity" notability. My submission for medical technologies includes independent cites in scientific journals, but the Wikipedia article reviewer says this is insufficient to establish "notability". It's not clear why cites in scientific journals are insufficient to establish notability. It seems to me that such cites, sufficient in scientific journals, are not sufficient for Wikipedia. Henrilebec (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec I don’t think the issue here is whether the journals are reliable so much as independent as they are written by the subject. The standard for a person such as this is WP:NACADEMIC. Things like citation index and special awards or academic positions are used to indicated notability, otherwise we need to see articles about him not from him to establish notability. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a link to your draft in the header as intended. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what's not clear. The articles cited are not by Burke, they are about Burke's scientific research projects. The work of Burke and his team were vetted and published by independent scientific journals (Harvard Medical School. Journal of Neurosurgery, Canadian Medical Journal, Departments of Pathology and Surgery,Harvard Medical School,and the Neurosurgical Service of The Children's Medical Center,Boston,Massachusettsetc). If Burke's name appears in the article, it is simply because he was the team leader responsible for assembling and recording the enormous amount of work of the various research teams. Otherwise, modern scientists are unable to understand where these discoveries were made. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that the Wikipedia reviewers are not familiar with older scientific journals that were responsible for vetting (and validating) this type of pioneering medical research. This, for example, was the first known instance of an engineering institution (Cal-Tech) engaging in innovative medical research. Can you provide some clarity for us? Henrilebec (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Henrilebec Ref 3 and 4 list Burke as an author, so valid to use as a supporting material for information but have no value in establishing notability. The age of the journals make no difference in how we assess, that being said many reviewers are not familiar with the specific WP:NACADEMIC as it is a more complex and dynamic policy then the more generally applied WP:GNG. So I am assuming you think they meet criteria 1 of the academic criteria, which may be the case, but I am also not comfortable in this standard enough to assess what a significant contribution to their field would be and how to prove it without cite bombing the article. In my attempts to look up a number of citations of his work I've been unable to get a feeling for this and it could be due to the age of the work in question. I will ping @WhatamIdoing here, as they are more familiar with this subject and maybe can provide more insight then I can. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 22:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For NACADEMIC questions, I always defer to David Eppstein. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to avoid debating the notability of medical academics because I do not really understand the citation patterns in those fields. I think User:JoelleJay may be a better choice for those fields, although she typically takes a harder line than I would. That said, Google Scholar was not promising; I only found one well cited publication, "The corrosion of metals in tissues; and an introduction to tantalum", not enough for WP:PROF#C1 even accounting for the likelihood that papers from that time period are less likely to be well cited today. The draft does not supply any evidence for notability other than through #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, @Mcmatter, @JoelleJay I've looked at this with the jaded eye of a reviewer and the exhortation to "accept any draft where I feel that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process."
I feel that it is on the right side, just, of the borderline, and would benefit from being edited in mainspace by the community. However, if accepted 'as is' there is no guarantee that my belief is correct.
Since it is being discussed in some detail here, what do we suggest the route forward to be? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! I generally restrict myself to contemporary academics whose Scopus profiles are easier to normalize within a field—the completeness for many journals is just too spotty before ~2000, and predictably not a single article by Burke is indexed. Searching through his citations on GS, I'm really not seeing more prose coverage than expected for a monograph, just passing mentions that wouldn't count toward GNG, e.g. Tantalum is a biocompatible, relatively inert transition metal whose first reported use was as a component of surgical sutures by Burke in 1940[1]
Tantalum usage in the biomedical field dates back to the 1940s, when Burke successfully performed several pure tantalum implantations, i.e., skin, subcutaneous and tendon sutures, as well as several plates[2]
Burke, who was probably the first person in modern times to implant Ta, reports it as being highly resistant to various strong acids.[3]
The first reported use of Ta in medical devices dates back to 1940 as Burke1 used Ta wires for skin sutures and Ta plates for fracture fixation devices.[4]
NPROF asks us to evaluate scholarly impact within a broad subfield, so I'm not convinced his continued reference is evidence of such impact when it's only in a very niche sub-subfield and not particularly voluminous at that. JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 31 December 2024 review of submission by 188.229.34.79

[edit]

New 188.229.34.79 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft that is only an infobox won't be accepted due to lack of content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

[edit]

02:54, 1 January 2025 review of submission by WhoIsBean

[edit]

I wanted to start writing a Wikipedia Article on a popular Roblox game. I found the draft and it has been declined 2 months ago, what do I do? WhoIsBean (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhoIsBean: "Popular Roblox game" isn't enough to warrant an article. What we would need to see is multiple third-party sources with editorial oversight that explicitly discuss the game (and not Roblox in general). If such sources don't exist - and I wager they're very unlikely to - we can't even discuss the merits of an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! WhoIsBean (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a reliable source made by the creators itself, it's only issue is that the information is inside the game and not on a site. WhoIsBean (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhoIsBean: A source "made by the creators [themselves]" is by definition not a third-party source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WhoIsBean I would suggest that perhaps a Fandom wiki designed to tell about aspects of Roblox or games made within Roblox would be a better place to do what you're trying to do. Here, you're going to need outside sources like news reports or reviews written by professional reviewers, which are unlikely to exist for a game within a game. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 1 January 2025 review of submission by Grimpoteuthisluvr1

[edit]

Hi! My draft got marked as WP:NOTESSAY, and I was wondering why. I want to spotlight brisantic politics as a concept propounded in Michael Truscello's book 'Infrastructural Brutalism: Art and the Necropolitics of Infrastructure', and have not posited a personal opinion in the article in relation to the same. Would it be better suited if I made the article about the book instead, and mentioned brisantic politics as a theme therein? I think it would be fitting for the book-article to be nested under Category:Radical feminist books (although I'm not sure how to get the article specifically posted thereunder). Grimpoteuthisluvr1 (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grimpoteuthisluvr1: for the record, your draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability. The reviewer also then remarked that it is "borderline" essay territory, but that was not the reason for declining.
If you can show that this concept has been discussed widely and in-depth in reliable and independent published media, then you may be able to get this accepted. The draft should consist almost exclusively of a summary of what such sources have said, which may not be (and almost certainly isn't) the same as a full exposition of the subject.
Any draft on the book you mention would need to demonstrate its own, separate notability, either per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification! Grimpoteuthisluvr1 (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:54, 1 January 2025 review of submission by Zafdabest

[edit]

why did it get rejected Zafdabest (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zafdabest a YouTube channel with 8 thousand subscribers is unlikely to be notable yet. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry i meant 8 HUNDRED thousand Zafdabest (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thats crazzy💀 Zafdabest (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zafdabest: The number of subscribers/followers/likes/views is not a measure of notability. As CanonNi says, a channel with few subscribers is unlikely to be notable, but a channel with many subscribers is not guaranteed to be more notable. It depends 100% on whether reliable, independent, secondary sources have written about the channel. Nothing else. --bonadea contributions talk 13:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 1 January 2025 review of submission by Williamsivy

[edit]

i was declined for not having references. Please tell me which information is incorrect. I have been diligently working on the article. Williamsivy (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether information is correct, so much as whether it is verified by a reliable published source. Many of your citations are to Williams' or his collaborators' recordings, or to their appearances in directories. These are almost all totally useless for a Wikipedia article.
The purpose of a citation is to provide a reliable publshed sources which verifies some information in the article, and very little else. Furthermore, for nearly all information, it needs to be a source wholly independent of the subject. 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) 15:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 1 January 2025 review of submission by Ongaram19

[edit]

Hello Team, The above draft article was rejected with the following reason -

"They do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

Can I get some specific feedback on what additional information I need to provide? Is it because of the citations used? I have used the ashram's website as a key reference for validation. Is it not a reliable source or can it not be considered a valid secondary or an independent source? Is there an issue with the writing style or level of neutrality in the language used?

Please let me know how I can augment the content in order to get it published. None of the details in there have been fabricated. Thank you! Ongaram19 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ongaram19 Please describe your general connection with the swami, see conflict of interest. (You took a picture of him and he posed for you) His website is not an independent source, an article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot,
Thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback. I took pictures of the Swami, his Guru and his mother from his published works (books). I contacted the ashram administration and confirmed that there are no copyrights for these pictures. Please let me know if there's a better way to have them uploaded to Wikimedia in order to use them in the article.
I do not have any personal connection with the Swami, but I have been a follower of his teachings. I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles on Indian spiritual saints (current and past) that have been authored/published by their followers. I was hoping to follow a similar approach.
I'm also looking for find better ways to provide citations of the Swami's books using their ISBNs. There are (regional/local) printed media references for the ashram's works, but I don't see them online. Will a copy/snapshot of the printed media (uploaded to Wikimedia) be acceptable as a citable reference? Please let me know.
Thank you! Ongaram19 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being a follower presents no COI issue.
You can't just take pictures of pictures in a book, due to copyright issues, as the copyright remains with the publisher of the book and/or the original photographer. You must immediately without delay request deletion of these images.
Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia.
References do not need to be online, printed references are fine. See Referencing for beginners on how to cite printed references. Merely citing his works, though, will not establish notability, only independent sources can do that. You wrote about a ceremony to reveal the stamp he was depicted on, was there news coverage of this event? 331dot (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot, Yes, I will request for the deletion of these images. If there are no copyrights for specific pictures, is there any acceptable way of establishing the same? I do understand that this is secondary when compared to acceptance of the draft.
Yes, there was news coverage of the stamp release event. I'm going to try to gather the printed sources for the same. If I can gather enough independent material to cite for authenticity, I assume I can augment with additional information from the website, if it is not controversial.
Thank you! Ongaram19 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot determine the copyright of an image, it must be assumed to be copyrighted, unless it is certain that, say, an image is old enough to be in the public domain according to at least the laws of the United States(where Wikipedia is physically located) and the laws of the home country. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I do plan to work with the Ashram administration to get formal information on the freedom to use these images (or a version of these) so that there are no copyright violation issues. Ongaram19 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are actually claiming that you took all the pictures, but some of them seem old. Please clarify. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ongaram19. 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) 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like he could be notable, but this draft would need a radically different approach, summarizing what others say about him. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @331dot,
If you can, please provide any hints on the alternate approach you are indicating I need to take. The content I added was essentially paraphrased versions of the printed materials / online information I gathered. The general structure (paragraph titles) and flow were influenced by other similar articles on Indian saints/philosophers. Ongaram19 (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft currently cites nothing other than his website- though you mention printed materials and perhaps other things that perhaps you have not written the citations for yet. The draft should mainly summarize those outside sources. Much of the draft is unsourced. Every piece of information about a living person must have a source in line with the text it is supporting. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for your inputs @331dot. Much appreciated. Ongaram19 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @ColinFine,
Understood. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. With regards to this topic (Indian spiritual saints/teachers), I have seen successfully published articles with content contributed by followers of the subject (although they may not have direct connection with the subject). I was hoping to take a similar approach, but I do understand the need to further substantiate the material using other (non-related) independent sources. I do plan to work on the same. Thanks! Ongaram19 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ongaram19. Wikipedia has many thousands of seriously deficient articles, which would not be accepted if they were submitted today - usually because they were written before we were so careful about standards. In an ideal world, volunteers would go through these, improving them, or deleting them if they cannot be made acceptable. In practice, not many volunteers want to spend their time doing this, so they remain; but we are more careful now about accepting new articles: see other stuff exists.
The steps to creating an acceptable article are easy to state, though not necessarily easy to carry out:
  1. Find several sources, each of which is reliably published, wholly independent of the subject of the article, and contains significant coverage of the subject. See WP:42 for more detail.
  2. If you can't find at least three such sources, give up, and work on something else.
  3. If you can, forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those independent sources say about the subject.
At that point you can submit the draft for review, and if you have followed these steps, it is likely to be accepted. Then you can think about adding images, infoboxes, uncontroversial factual information sources only to non-indepedent sources (such as places, dates). ColinFine (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your inputs, @ColinFine. Ongaram19 (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:38, 1 January 2025 review of submission by AstrooKai

[edit]

A copyvios report of this draft showed 99.9% similarity from this blogspot. Not only the entire prose was a WP:COPYPASTE, but the footnotes were copypasted as well. Is this draft also nominatable for speedy deletion per G12? I'm not entirely sure if content from blogger.com is copyright-protected since they are user-generated. AstrooKai (Talk) 21:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is user-generated or not is entirely irrelevant, @AstrooKai. If there is no explicit statement to the contrary, the material is copyright, and should be deleted immediately. See WP:CV for how you should proceed. ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been declined and was nominated to speedy deletion by another editor. But thanks for the response, this will help me in future reviews. AstrooKai (Talk) 22:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference (though I doubt it applied here in this case) while checking for copyvio it's also a good idea to make sure that the copyvio isn't coming from the other direction (i.e. a source plagiarising Wikipedia content). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:52, 1 January 2025 review of submission by Slim8029

[edit]

I have just added a citation that is a chapter in a book that has contributions by many authors. I entered the ISBN number but that refers only to the book. How do I show the title and author for just one of the articles within the book? The "Link Author" process doesn't seem appropriate. Slim8029 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use the Cite book template, which has a lot of optional parameters so you can enter both the book title and the chapter title, the name of the editor(s) of the volume and the name of the author for the chapter you quote. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Got it to work. Slim8029 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some information that I have collected has come via emails from e.g. Michael's daughter-in-law, David Crook's son, comments on my draft by one of the authors that I cite. Can I use such material in my list of references? Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slim8029 No, private communications are not acceptable sources. Materials in an article must come from published reliable sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need separate threads for each question. 331dot (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

[edit]

00:55, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Renebird100

[edit]

I need some reliable sources if I'm gonna have this published. So, tell me when am I gonna publish the page? Renebird100 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Renebird100: As others have told you multiple times on multiple pages and drafts, there are currently not enough sources to move the article to mainspace. Once the event happens, and reliable sources become available, you can add them to the draft and it should be ready for acceptance. Remember, there is no deadline, so there is no need to rush the creation of the page. cyberdog958Talk 03:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

04:04, 2 January 2025 review of submission by CLWwrites

[edit]

I can't seem to remove a link for the Laurie Bower singers in this article. A reviewer declined my article and cited this link as inappropriate because it doesn't mention Andy Winter...I can't seem to remove it.

I also want to understand about links to newspapers. The link to the Toronto Star takes you to the Aurora Library where the archives are held. I wanted to publish the photo of Andy Winter from that article. The links to international papers are often not archived but I have photocopies of the articles. Can I use them?

Personal photos are there limits to how many you can use? 


CLWwrites (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CLWwrites: Ideally you should be using zero images in a draft. We do not allow fair-use images in drafts and even freely-licenced images are irrelevant to if a draft gets accepted; reviewers are looking at your text and sourcing.
As for offline sources (such as newspapers), you cite them with the relevant citation template (in this case {{Cite news}}) and provide enough metadata to look the source up in an offline archive. (For newspapers, we need at minimum the paper name, paper edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1929), article name, article byline, and the page(s) the story is on.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 2 January 2025 review of submission by CSMention269

[edit]

The reviewer declined and said that the TOI citation cannot be used as a reference (it lacks WP:V), regardless of the NPOL qualification. While I agree with that, there is no objection to SIGCOV and reliability. I used TOI before on my previous drafts which were accepted. See the citation and tell me can I use it. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CSMention269: one statement in that paragraph, which is not supported by either of the sources cited, is the subject being from the Kapu caste. I don't know if that's what the comment refers to, though; you probably need to ask the reviewer what specifically they meant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:47, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Artennina

[edit]

It would be a help if someone could give me good advise for this article to get a "go" for it. Artennina (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous declines have finally led to rejection, meaning resubmission is not possible, because notability has not been demonstrated. Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the policies linked to therein(especially WP:MUSICBIO). If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns raised, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Artennina: every one of the half a dozen declines leading up to the rejection gave you the reasons for the decline, which you should have addressed, but didn't. You've also been requested to disclose your conflict of interest with regard to this subject, but you haven't. In other words, you are blithely ignoring all the requests and suggestions, and now you are here asking for "good advise" (sic). That doesn't quite compute. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:30, 2 January 2025 review of submission by PallxviGhosh

[edit]

Hello! I need help with identifying independent references from my list of sources. May I ask how many references would be required for the above article? Are the ones listed below enough? Do these count as independent sources?

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIV-93PRwXo

- https://www.facebook.com/FrontlistIN/videos/mr-asoke-k-ghosh-president-emeritus-of-fip-is-sharing-his-kind-words-in-his-welc/522393439460355/

- https://news.kiit.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/KIIT-Review-March-2022.pdf

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCrMoWT4DAY

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muSKQjdA0i0

- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTph6fbKl3c 

PallxviGhosh (talk) 10:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and social media are not acceptable references. YouTube is only acceptable if the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PallxviGhosh: just to clarify, this draft was not declined only because the sources are not independent, it was declined because it is promotional in tone and content. Your job is not to praise the subject, merely to describe him, and to do so by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about him.
Could you also please now respond to the conflict-of-interest query which I posted on your talk page months ago. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry about not replying to the conflict-of-interest query. I'll do that immediately.
Thanks for this advice, though. It was very helpful. PallxviGhosh (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:20, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Andriuspetrulevic

[edit]

Hello, what i need to do? How to change article? Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for this company, that must be disclosed as a Terms of Use requirement, see WP:PAID. I see that you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to the company logo.
You were left a message at the top of your draft by the reviewer. Please read it, and the pages linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to get information about what I have to correct to get my article published?
I work in this company and with this project, so we want to publish the article. Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andriuspetrulevic: as already stated, the messages (decline notices and accompanying comments) tell you what you need to correct. TL;DNR = the draft must be supported by and based on reliable sources, and must establish notability by multiple (3+) sources which meet the criteria in the WP:GNG guideline.
Your paid-editing disclosure must be made either on the draft talk page, or on your own user page, or both. In the latter case, you need to use the {{paid}} template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:27, 2 January 2025 review of submission by BigDaddyBragg

[edit]

I don't know how you can make this any more notable. This is produced music artist that sites a major website. I have stated before I represent the subject of the article but have only pulled from the current publicly available sites. any help would be appreciated BigDaddyBragg (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any references in the draft. You have some external links, but these are not references. See Referencing for beginners. You haven't established that this person meets the definition of a notable creative professional.
You need to formally disclose your representation, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BigDaddyBragg: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. There is not even any real claim, let alone evidence, of notability. In fact, "Remy Day's journey into music production began in December 2024" – as in, the month that ended all of two days ago – pretty much shows the opposite of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 2 January 2025 review of submission by 103.165.167.63

[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure how to edit this article. I have provided all the information requested. Can you please support? 103.165.167.63 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers, which describe exactly what needs to happen. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Iliochori2

[edit]

I would like to contribute to improve this article Iliochori2 (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 2 January 2025 review of submission by 86.61.79.152

[edit]

Wiki page Draft:MCreator keeps getting rejected due to inadequate citations.

The page now cites many 3rd party pages, including books, science papers, and other websites.

Many other similar software pages (for software much less known and with much fewer discussions and sources available) have much fewer references than that and exist on Wikipedia without issues.

What should be done on this page to finally end the rejection cycle that has been going on for 3 years? 86.61.79.152 (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to provide the whole url of a Wikipedia article or page. Just place the title in double brackets.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is considered on its own merits. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist, even for years(many articles were created before current processes)- we can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inapprpriate content. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something and what it does- you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about this topic and what makes it notable. Being "3rd party" is only part of the issue. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may sound odd, but there is actually too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. 331dot (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page keeps being rejected for 3 years now. First it was due to unreliable sources, then more were added, it was for overcication. Then it was reduced and now it is an unreliable sources again.

The page cites many sources, including books and journals and 3rd party unrelated websites.

Checking similar software wiki pages, many cite more or less only own pages, so I would like to know what is different about those pages? MCreator is also very widely known software compared to some other pages, so I believe a wiki page for transparent info about it would benefit everyone. Klemen63 (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What could be done to improve the citing. I have used google scholar to try to find as many valid references?
Last rejection did not mention too many references, but rather unreliable.
Could someone help me understand which references are unreliable, so I can try to remove them or find alternatives? Klemen63 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my message above. I would add that Wikipedia articles(not "pages", an article is a page but not every page is an article) are not for merely providing information.
Let's try it this way- what are the best three(and only three, please) sources in this draft, that show it meets notability? 331dot (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that may meet notability would be most likely https://en.softonic.com/articles/mcreator-review-minecraft-modding-fun and https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/minecraft-mod-maker/.
But there is no direct 3rd party resource that would collect all knowledge around this topic at one place, thought Wikipedia was meant to collect info from multiple sources into one page? Klemen63 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a mere database of information that includes anything and everything. A Wikipedia article doesn't just collect information. It must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about a topic.
The Softonic source might be okay, though it's not written by a professional reviewer, they seem to just be a gamer telling what they like about it. The second piece just explains how to use this mod. We need sources that desribe what is significant/important/influential about it- not just a description of its features. If you just want to collate information somewhere, I would suggest a website with less stringent requirements where you can just tell the world about something- like a blogging website. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 2 January 2025 review of submission by 2A00:23C4:649C:DF01:9D94:7449:660:C05B

[edit]

The topic I wrote about is incredibly difficult to cite or source as it is a misnomer in of itself, but well known or discussed enough to warrant writing about. As it says in the article it returns almost no results on google scholar, and no academic sources to confirm or deny its existence, though it can be logically denied very easily. 2A00:23C4:649C:DF01:9D94:7449:660:C05B (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let me ask where the contents of the draft have come from? Those are the sources you should be citing. If they then turn out to be not reliable, not published, and/or otherwise unacceptable, that may mean that this draft cannot be accepted, but at least we can then properly evaluate this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same person who wrote the article and asked the question earlier, just under an account now rather than IP
Great, thanks for clarifying. I have those.
Achromatomaly as a term
There isn't an accepted point where the term achromatomaly began. As the article states, it's a medically incorrect term, and doesn't actually exist as a condition. The likely beginning of the term came from the term 'achromatopsia' which is an actual medical condition, and '-anomaly' which obviously refers to an anomaly, but in color blindness refers to anomalous trichromacy such as protanomaly, again a well sourced condition.
Color Blind Simulators and Achromatomaly
Coblis color blind simulator is arguably the most popular, and as you can see on the website it has Anomalous Trichromacies, dichromacies, and 'monochromatic vision', in which it reads 'blue cone monochromacy'. However this simulation, which was originally using ColorJack's Color Matrix software, described that as 'achromatomaly' which as i stated is incorrect. However due to the mix up, Blue cone monochromacy still shows an incorrect filter.
Color Matrix, the original origin of this, has been defunct since an unspecified point, the internet archive tells me the late 2000s to early 2010s. A dysfunctional version is at least visible here: https://web.archive.org/web/20061219231504/http://www.colorjack.com/ on the internet archive.
The reason I consider this worthy of an article at least is the fact that this isn't a small issue. Pilestone is probably the 2nd biggest company for creating color blind glasses, behind enchroma, and even their website uses this faulty simulation https://pilestone.com/pages/color-blindness-simulator-1, and they call themselves 'color blind experts'. In google search this turns over a million results but only 15 google scholar results, as is seen here:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Achromatomaly
In comparison, Achromatopsia returns just over 2 million results, but 11,600 google scholar results, over 400 times more in ratio of academic reports to google results:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=achromatopsia
Additionally, online communities, namely reddit, have largely been tricked into thinking this condition exists as well. Obviously as no website like wikipedia has a page explaining the 'condition' or clearing that it doesn't exist, it allows it to become more popular and infiltrate the internet more.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ColorBlind/search/?q=achromatomaly&cId=e586d65e-c2f3-4e3a-88f3-6f9e91dc4354&iId=cf2e9180-e8a2-4568-8aad-7d66124ddf56
A youtube channel put together a well made essay debunking the condition, however many of the claims on there are now impossible, for example, the colorjack website was previously viewable through the internet archive, now it only shows HTML and no interface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYZ00B5O_VQ
I find this topic quite difficult to properly source as well... it doesn't exist? But it's enough of a phenomenon to warrant an article. Actually previously the wikipedia article on "Color Blindness" back in july actually included achromatomaly in the article, before being removed, which is still viewable on the history. OrcaTsu (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't source it, then you can't have an article. And you can't use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah makes sense, can I keep it in draft state at least until i can find a good amount of sources for it OrcaTsu (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts don't get deleted unless they're repeatedly rejected (not declined) or they haven't been edited in six months. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great that clears it all up thank you so much OrcaTsu (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Mayursonar331

[edit]

getting decliened Mayursonar331 (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please see the message left by the reviewer. You also must formally disclose your relationship with the company, see your user talk page for instructions . I note that you say you personally created and own the copyright to the company logo. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined because it is nothing like a Wikipedia article. An article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the company have chosen to publish about the company in reliable sources, cited to those sources: see WP:42. What the company says or wants to say is almost completely irrelevant: 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.
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. ColinFine (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Pskkannan02

[edit]

I've been trying to upload my invention in wikipedia for the past 1 month and my article is rejected after several changes too , I really need assistance in uploading my article , Power division theorem is invented by me in 2018 and is a very powerful theorem and has been added in many university syllabus too , I really wanted to upload this as many students will find it easier to learn about it and people worldwide can witness the theorem Pskkannan02 (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your invention. You should use social media for that. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Kristin Ann Johnson

[edit]

How do I get a rejected submission reversed? This was not ever intended to be an ad. Lightspeed DMS has been around for 40 years and has a unique history that is often asked about. Kristin Ann Johnson (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appeal to the rejecting reviewer, or show us a gross violation of policy by the reviewer. I don't see that here. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they consider to be their own history; articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. You should use your company website to tell the history of your company. Wikipedia wants to know what others say is the history of your company.
Press releases don't do that, and Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles. Please read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors read it too. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Tzachg

[edit]

This submission was declined because it does not demonstrate that the subject qualifies for an article. In the submission I linked to an article about the subject in a surf media outlet I assumed was reputable, as well as the subject's entry on the Skateboarding Hall Of Fame page.

I am unclear as to whether these are deemed invalid forms of substantiation, if they are deemed valid but insufficient in quantity, or if they are deemed invalid due to a formatting issue? Thanks. Tzachg (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post, you need the "Draft:" portion. You list as a reference "All information in this article sourced from interviews with Paul Schmitt between 2019 and 2024". This is unacceptable. Interviews are primary sources and you have not provided a way to verify their content. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2025 (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) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 2 January 2025 review of submission by Slim8029

[edit]

I am in the process of finalizing my article. I am aware some statements do not have citations. Before submitting the article for review, should I (1) leave everything in that I would like to have in the article (2) strip out some items that could never have even an implied citation (3) be severe and strip out anything without a citation? Thanks. Slim8029 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that doesn't have a citation should be removed. See WP:BACKWARD; you should have the citations first, not look for one after the fact. 331dot (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

[edit]

00:11, 3 January 2025 review of submission by TheTechie

[edit]

I am an experienced editor but inexperienced with making pages (proven by the fact that all of my articles created have been deleted), so I decided to make a new draft for a subject that I thought should be included in Wikipedia. However, my draft has been declined, and I have a couple of questions: 1. How might I improve the page's notability? 2. How might I find sources (Google really isn't helping me here)? TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheTechie:! Notability is a characteristic of the topic rather than the Wikipedia article, so it is not possible for us as editors to improve the notability. What we can do, provided the topic is in fact notable, is improve the sourcing by adding reliable and wholly independent sources. Articles should mainly be built by reading reliable, independent and secondary sources and adding information based on what is in those sources, and not by writing the draft/article text first and then trying to find sources to support that text. I hope this makes sense! --bonadea contributions talk 10:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea I understand that, I was only writing what I could find in sources. This is my fourth/fifth declined/deleted page and I really am having trouble making sense of this feedback and how to improve. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechie, has anyone linked you to WP:42 yet? I find it to be a less overwhelming version of 'what to look for in a source'. Generally you need three sources that match all three criteria in WP:42, which then establishes notability. Are you focusing on a particular kind of article? All I could find was one that was deleted for NOTNEWS, so I'm wondering if your stumbling block is the article type - e.g. do you usually work on current events, or is it more of a variety? StartGrammarTime (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:40, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Thadhi Dhamsith

[edit]

Why It Isn't Pulished Thadhi Dhamsith (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not suitable as an article. Please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thadhi Dhamsith: As the reviewer noted in their rejection, nothing in your page shows that you are notable to have an article written about you. The page is closer to a resume or social media page, which is not what wikipedia is for, than an encyclopedic article. cyberdog958Talk 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:51, 3 January 2025 review of submission for Kat Tatz

[edit]

I am requesting assistance to help create the Wikipedia page for Kat Tatz, an established artist, and to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, verifiability, and neutrality. My primary goal is to ensure that the page is accepted and not declined, and I am seeking guidance to confirm that it fully complies with Wikipedia's standards. I would appreciate any feedback or recommendations to improve the content, particularly in areas related to adherence to guidelines, neutrality, and citation quality.

I have done my best to follow Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines to the best of my ability, making sure that the article is free from bias or promotional language. I want to make sure that the article reflects Kat Tatz’s accomplishments in an accurate, neutral, and verifiable way, without sounding like an advertisement. If there is anything further I can do to make sure the article is accepted and meets Wikipedia’s standards, I would be grateful for any advice or edits. Additionally, if there are any steps I can take to expedite the creation process or to ensure the article progresses smoothly through review and approval, I would appreciate any insight on that as well. Thank you for your time and assistance in reviewing this draft. 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennerTatz (talk • contribs)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kat Tatz
@JennerTatz: this draft was declined because it doesn't show that the subject is notable. There are two relevant notability guidelines you need to consider, the general WP:GNG and the special WP:NARTIST one. The former essentially requires significant coverage of the subject in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. The latter, significant career achievements. Please study both guidelines and consider whether you can demonstrate, with clear evidence, that the subject satisfies one or the other. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing:Thank you for the information! I have reviewed the comments, and I understand the concerns raised regarding notability and self-promotion. In response, I made several key changes to improve the submission and better adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.
What I Changed:
1. Added More Independent Sources: I incorporated additional sources, including reputable news outlets such as Channel 13 Las Vegas, Las Vegas Weekly, and Vegasmagazine, which provide independent coverage of Kat Tatz’s work and achievements. This helps ensure that the article reflects her recognition in the art world and covers her impact beyond self-representation.
2. Minimized Self-Promotion: I reworded several sections to reduce the focus on personal biography and exhibition details, shifting the emphasis toward her recognition in public venues and media coverage. I’ve worked to remove any language that could be construed as self-promotion, instead focusing on her external validation from critics, curators, and media sources.
3. Clarified Career Achievements: I highlighted her success in the “Made in Vegas” art competition and her work being displayed alongside renowned artists. I’ve aimed to demonstrate her professional accomplishments and how her work is recognized by others in the art community, in line with the guidelines for notability.
I also wanted to address any concern about my relationship with the subject of the article. While I do know Kat Tatz personally, I have made every effort to ensure that this article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines and maintains objectivity. However, if there are still concerns about neutrality due to this connection, I am open to working with an editor to further minimize any potential bias.
Additionally, Kat Tatz’s work deserves recognition not only for her artistic achievements but also in light of her contributions as a female artist in the Las Vegas art scene. As part of the “Women in Red” initiative, which highlights the accomplishments of women artists, I believe Kat’s career aligns with this cause, especially as she continues to break barriers in a traditionally male-dominated art world. Her presence in prominent locations and exhibitions is a testament to her standing as a respected artist, and I would appreciate any further guidance on how to incorporate this aspect into the article.
Thank you for your time and consideration. JennerTatz (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JennerTatz: WikiProject Women in Red has laudable aims, which I fully support (FWIW), but new articles published in pursuit of those objectives still have to meet the same notability etc. standards as any other article. There is also no need to mention that project or otherwise reflect it in the article contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:55, 3 January 2025 review of submission by 2409:40C2:605A:3199:4517:9B3E:7B5B:204E

[edit]

pls help me with this article i want to publish it as newbi here pls give me proper guidance it will be very helpful 

2409:40C2:605A:3199:4517:9B3E:7B5B:204E (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are Mayursonar331, please log into your account when editing.
Wikipedia is not a marketing channel for your business, we have zero interest in what you want to tell the world about your "technology solutions company". We almost exclusively want to know what third parties, especially independent and reliable secondary sources, have said about your business and what makes it worthy of note. Find such sources, summarise their coverage, and cite them as your references. You will end up with a completely different draft from the current one, and might actually have a chance of getting it published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Zoe Sharma

[edit]

To get permission for submitting a draft. May I submit Draft:Era Joshi again for review ? Zoe Sharma (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first step in appealing a rejection is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. Click the word "talk" next to their name in the rejection notice. To be allowed to resubmit it, you must indicate that you can (or have) fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the reviewers.
You have one source, which is insufficient. If you cannot find at least three appropriate sources to summarize, this person would not merit a Wikipedia article. I will add that the award you mention would not confer notability on this person as there seems to be no article about the award itself(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the rejecting reviewers. There is not even one source that shows notability, because the only source in the draft ([5]) is paid promotion, neither independent nor secondary and not even reliable. You have previously added multiple copies of the same promotional piece, for instance [6] (which is from Republic World, never a reliable source), [7], and [8]. These are not different sources, they are the same source (and again, it is a source that does not count towards showing notability). Back in November, you added references to sources that did not exist (I spent considerable time searching for them), and to sources that exist but don't mention Joshi. And all this is why I rejected your draft. As far as I am concerned, no, you have wasted so much time for reviewers that you can't resubmit the draft now. --bonadea contributions talk 10:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoe Sharma My rejection also still stands, for the same reason as @Bonadea. Sorry, there is nothing more you can do here. qcne (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 3 January 2025 review of submission by NovaExplorer37

[edit]

why has my article been declined i mean i took hours for this draft and it directly gets declined! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NovaExplorer37. Biographies on Wikipedia can only exist if the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word, see Wikipedia:Notability. For musicians, the requirements are laid out at WP:NMUSICIAN. The criteria listed there can be demonstrated by using reliable sources, see WP:Reliable sources. Note that blogspot blogs, discogs (WP:DISCOGS) and LastFM (WP:LASTFM) are not considered reliable sources. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the thing there is a wiki article about him but only in german Click here to see article by Fazlija in german. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this website confuses me alot like what the hell is criteria WP:MUSICIAN what is all this i dont understand anything about this website like i did almost the same article over and over again and they all get deleted by my best work like i even follow the rules and still some admins delete it like this should be sued NovaExplorer37 (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @NovaExplorer37, sorry this has been a frustrating experience for you. Wikipedia is complicated. For new editors, writing an article is the hardest task they can do. It would be like performing in an orchestra when you've only just started to play a musical instrument. Sounds like a bad idea, doesn't it?
Why not make improvements to existing articles for a few weeks to get used to our policies and guidelines. There's suggested edits to be found on your personal Wikipedia Homepage. qcne (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the articles that are in the homepage are more confusing then making a article like i dont firstly know any of then and second of all all of them are mostly private to edit NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not the Wikipedia homepage, your personal homepage at Special:Homepage.
In any case, and please do not take offence, but I feel you do not quite have the competence yet to edit Wikipedia if you are struggling this much. Perhaps editing is not for you, and you should do something else, or come back in a few years? @NovaExplorer37 qcne (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why should i come back in a few year what sense does it make? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may have developed the maturity and competency to contribute constructively. qcne (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well i made another new music (album) draft this is i think on of reliable sources ive used and so i was questioning if any admin could go check it out? (if the sources are not good and get declined i’ll try my best to find many as i can) (::
Best Regards and Love To All @NovaExplorer37 NovaExplorer37 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, im editing the mainpage as yall said i should do for the tip! thanks again (: NovaExplorer37 (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on, say, the German Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh wow NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NovaExplorer37: if that German article has sources that could be used to support this draft, you can cite them here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it probably will still get deleted.. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NovaExplorer37 Be aware of no legal threats. I understand frustration, but threats don't help you. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its confusing and mostly hard to understand NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NovaExplorer37 You said "this should be sued", policy says you cannot say that. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
k? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Notsam1

[edit]

To those who may see this, I'm not sure why this draft was denied on grounds of notability when the sources for the page have been used in others (my draft is simply a continuation of the Order-5 series, i.e. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Order-5_hexagonal_tiling), and furthermore the topic of order-5 polyhedras have been accepted on the wiki, so to some extent it is, well, notable. Any assistance helps... Notsam1 (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notsam1 It could be that those article articles are not appropriate either- see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though wouldn't/isn't every article quality checked by staff before submission, I don't see how my reasoning would plateau there (unless if I am missing something) Notsam1 (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notsam1 No, not everthing is checked, either now or in the past. This submission process has not always existed, and is usually voluntary. We don't have a "staff", this is entirely volunteer driven. The Wikimedia Foundation has staff(identified with (WMF) in their usernames) but they only participate here in a limited fashion. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this draft could probably be accepted if you converted those external links into references, @Notsam1, if it helps. qcne (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Hamir samanta

[edit]

why every time it placed in draft after submission Hamir samanta (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamir samantha Becuase you have not addressed the concerns raised; it has now been rejected, meaning it won't be considered anymore. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Sturdybeats!

[edit]

I was wondering why my article submission for review was declined. Sturdybeats! (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message left by the reviewer; one big reason is that the references need to be properly formatted, see Referencing for Beginners. Note that to be notable for being nominated for a Grammy he needs to have been specifically named as a nominee, not merely worked on a nominated album/for a nominated artist.
Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the problems already stated, this article looks mostly, if not entirely, generated by AI/LLM. It reads like an LLM, detects with a high probability of being from an LLM, and the only reference provided is from ChatGPT, an LLM. English Wikipedia has no interest in content written by AI. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 3 January 2025 review of submission by UpendraPT

[edit]

Can you guide me to write a proper changes or article to publish a page? UpendraPT (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your association with this company? 331dot (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know the meaning and solution for this ? "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified" UpendraPT (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a new thread for every post, just edit this existing thread. The solution is to gather independent reliable sources and then summarize what they say, showing how this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:42, 3 January 2025 review of submission by LeGoldenBoots

[edit]

Regarding the comment on my page, should I make an entirely new section or just rewrite the page in a way that doesn't condense it into a list? Some of the references outline certain filmmaker's opinions on the film and how it impacted their style of filmmaking. I also found some new references that outline certain filmmakers that have been affected by the film here:

https://filmstories.co.uk/features/the-shining-why-do-filmmakers-love-to-reference-stanley-kubricks-horror-classic/
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-lasting-impact-of-stanley-kubricks-the-shining/
https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/how-did-sam-fuller-and-the-shining-shape-lynne-ramsay/
https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/steven-spielberg-favorite-movies/guardians-of-the-galaxy-from-left-zoe-saldana-chris-pratt-2014-walt-disney-studios-motion/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/movies/the-shining-doctor-sleep.html

I'm just wondering on what the best move would be for this article because I feel like there's two different ways it could go. LeGoldenBoots (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Alpceliko

[edit]

May I ask why it is declined? Thank you. Alpceliko (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not declined it was rejected the topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpceliko: Draft:Yeditepe University Science Fiction Club wasn't merely declined, it was rejected outright, for lack of any evidence of notability. To be frank, even individual university faculties/departments aren't usually notable, so how do you expect a student club to be? It would have to be quite an extraordinary club, to receive significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, TV channels, etc.). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 3 January 2025 review of submission by 176.234.88.115

[edit]

why 176.234.88.115 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:41, 3 January 2025 review of submission by Therguy10

[edit]

I was told this article is WP:TOOSOON, which I understand. However, another article, Rapterra, makes me wonder if there is a way I can make it work. In addition, another very similar coaster, Phoenix Rising, was accepted into the database, so I know that this coaster model can be notable. (TBBWTWR has a deep history to go along with it too!) So I was just wondering that if I could gather enough sources to prove how notable this coaster is, could it be accepted? Thanks!

(Note: I tried to reply to the editor who gave me my initial feedback, but failed to ping them until I manually had to do it hours later in the source code; hence why I'm asking here) Therguy10 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Therguy10. Neither Phoenix Rising (roller coaster) nor Rapterra was ever submitted through AFC, and it's possible that one or both would not have been accepted. Phoenix Rising appears to have many more citations than your draft - unsurprisingly, since it is actually open - though I haven't looked at their quality. Rapterra looks to me as if it also has only routine coverage, but again I haven't looked closely.
It's not about number of sources, but about their quality: specifically, does each one meet all three of the criteria in WP:42?
As always, we assess each draft against the standards, not against other articles. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I may still give it a go, as I do believe that it is notable enough. But it may be best to wait a little while. Thanks for your help. Therguy10 (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

[edit]

00:47, 4 January 2025 review of submission by 96.227.67.98

[edit]

I’m struggling to understand what I need to do to have this page approved. I believed that the topic—the work of renowned psychologist Derek Hook—and the sources I used to develop the page met all the requirements. However, it seems like I’m missing something important, and I could really use some support to get through this last hurdle. Thank you for your help! 96.227.67.98 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the reviews on his books and the commentary that followed the incident in which he was involved are good sources and might be evidence of notability. However, this solid sourcing is drowned in a lot of primary sources (many references are from works published by Hook himself, which should only be used very sparsely) and less reliable sources like tweets and university profiles. Pointing out three best sources that follow WP:GOLDENRULE could help future reviewers assess notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:11, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Cnevers

[edit]

It won’t submit the first box it says error Cnevers (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you attempted to submit another user's userpage (User:United States Man) instead of your draft (Draft:Carter Nevers). Also, I suggest you to read Wikipedia:Autobiography if you want to create that article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Babbarakali

[edit]

Please explain why my contributions to this page are being declined. This page is for a village which exists but does not have a page dedicated for it yet. The demographic facts mentioned are from sources published by the government of India. The biographies mentioned on the page reference historical texts which go into depth regarding the subjects mentioned. Babbarakali (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Babbarakali: if this draft is about a human settlement, it should be about that, and no other subjects. There should be no 'biographies' in it at all. And in any case, our definition of 'notable residents' is ones who have Wikipedia articles, which none of the ones mentioned in your draft seem to do.
Other than that, you've resubmitted the draft, so you will receive feedback when it is reviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:45, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Chuhwakgeorge

[edit]

I need help in creating the above page as I am a new editor, how to add up links and secondary sources. Chuhwakgeorge (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuhwakgeorge: drafts must be based on reliable published sources, which must be cited as references (inline, in the case of living people). You must also show that the subject meets our notability requirements, typically per the WP:GNG guideline. Your draft cites no sources.
You can find pretty much everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:55, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Porpisith

[edit]

He's a LD Entertainment KH's CEO and film director from Cambodia. Porpisith (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Porpisith: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all CEOs and directors merit articles. Directors need to be shown to meet the definition of a notable creative professional; CEOs would need to be shown to meet the more general notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:25, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Sarah Paula Roberts

[edit]

I have edited parts which might have been biased. This is a very neutral edit. Please publish it as a person has negative qualities along with its positive ones so that viewers have a clear conscience. Sarah Paula Roberts (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I have edited parts which might have been biased. This is a very neutral edit. Please publish it as a person has negative qualities along with its positive ones so that viewers have a clear conscience. Sarah Paula Roberts (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarah Paula Roberts: this help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process. The Blake Lively article is almost 20 years old. If you need help with that (or any other aspect of Wikipedia editing in general), you can ask at the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case your question is about User:Sarah Paula Roberts/sandbox, where you have written a section of an article, it is still unacceptable for Wikipedia. It is so negative in tone that it is a borderline violation the policy on biographies about living people, it coontains personal opinions, and it has no sources. I see that an IP user (presimably you – don't forget to log in!) has posted the same two paragraphs to Talk:Blake Lively. That is the place where you can suggest changes to the article, since the article itself is semi-protected. But you need to explain that it is a proposed new addition to the article, you can't just dump the text there without explanation. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:56, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Stephan dasa

[edit]

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Stephan dasa (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed @Stephan dasa. Did you have a question about that? Verifiability is the key policy on Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Stephan dasa

[edit]

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. Stephan dasa (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan dasa Please do not create multiple topics about the same draft. Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 4 January 2025 review of submission by NEWMOONFilmpro

[edit]

This is my second wikipedia article. When I submitted it the notification says it'll take up to 2 month so after I sent in my first article I went ahead and started my second draft and submitted it probably too quickly. You are rejecting while I am editing though and not giving me enough time to finish. NEWMOONFilmpro (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NEWMOONFilmpro, if you get unblocked please only submit for review once you have finished editing the draft and you are happy for it to be reviewed by a reviewer. It's rather like telling a teacher "Why did you mark the homework I gave to you, it was only half finished?".
I would also really recommend reading our policies on Wikipedia:Notability since both drafts you submitted were not showing evidence of notability yet. qcne (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:04, 4 January 2025 review of submission by Sophia2030

[edit]

I have a COI on the article but need assistance for another reviewer because two editors, intended to accept it including an administrator that later advised me to Resubmit it after I provided 3 sources to prove its Notability at the Tea house. Sophia2030 (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1267300436"