Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


November 28

[edit]

05:11, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Mackmahak

[edit]

can you help me to understand what Wikipedia can carry...as per the guidelines we have added the content Mackmahak (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackmahak: I'm not sure what you're asking, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Sujitbus

[edit]

Hi Admin, The edit text for my biography has been declined. So I want to know how I can Fixed the issue. Sujitbus (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujitbus: there is insufficient evidence of notability; you need to show how you are notable by either the WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:NACTOR standard.
Also, articles on living people require inline citations. Please see WP:REFB for advice.
Finally, if this is about you, please read and understand our autobiography policy WP:AUTOBIO. In short, autobiographies are very strongly discouraged. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing,
Yes It's my autobiography. inline citations is missing on my bio page. So I'll update on same. and I'm fulfill of notability I have articles and I'm award winner Author including actor who's worked on Indian TV shows and some notable movies. Sujitbus (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also suggest that you read WP:PROUD. There are good reasons to not want an article about yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Tizzythewhale

[edit]

any suggestions for this article to get accepted in wiki Tizzythewhale (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tizzythewhale: this draft was rejected (months ago) for lack of evidence of notability. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you need to take your case to the rejecting reviewer, with evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:53, 28 November 2024 review of submission by AviKluger

[edit]

My Draft was rejected: "This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner." I am interested in improving the Draft so it might be accepted in the future. Yet, I did not understand the comments. For example, it says, "Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources," while my Draft contains 27 peer-reviewed journal articles as secondary resources. What am I missing here? Could you please direct me to existing entries considered exemplary in this domain so they can serve as a model for improving my Draft? AviKluger (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AviKluger: This reads more like a research paper about the method, mixed with an instruction manual on how to do it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano thank you very much for this helpful clarification. Could you please suggest a few model entries in related fields so I can attempt to revise my entry successfully? Avi AviKluger (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Wertk

[edit]

I do agree with the "not sufficient content" as this article requires more info & citations but "Submission should be merged into an existing article" with Arrest_of_Imran_Khan is not ideal because that event happened in 9 May 2023. The indiscriminate killing of civilians by security forces in Islamabad happened on 26 Nov 2024 with at "least" confirmed deaths of 17 individuals as per the Guardian newspaper. Event of this magnitude deserve its own page and we have many such examples on wikipedia. Perhaps the name could be changed to less charged language like '26 November Incident'. Wertk (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wertk: okay... so what is your question? This draft has been resubmitted (without any improvement, which is never a good idea, although I can see some edits were made after that), so you will get a new review sooner or later.
If you haven't already done so, you may want to review our guideline on notability of events, at WP:EVENT. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a news outlet, just because an event has occurred doesn't necessarily mean that we should have an article on it. (Note, I'm not saying that we should not have an article on this particular event, just making a general point.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the reviewers have gotten it wrong, you are free to move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself(though it's not a good idea unless you have experience in having articles accepted, which you don't). This process is (usually) voluntary. You would be taking the risk, though, that it would get nominated for deletion. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be declined since we already have an article on this, and this falls into a contentious topic anyway. New users should stay as far away from contentious topics as possible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:37, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Anonpriest

[edit]

The draft was declined because of it's resources. I would assistance on finding other resources if any and if possible to mention why the resources I provided were not adequate. Anonpriest (talk) 08:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonpriest: to be more precise, this draft was declined because it does not demonstrate notability, which, indeed, is usually a problem with the sources. You should be writing this by summarising what reliable and independent sources have said about the subject, and then citing those sources as its references. Assuming that's what you have done, then it could be that the subject really isn't notable enough. In any case, we don't do the research for you, that's very much your job as the draft author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious message

[edit]

Hi,

I received message from Laiba Fareed stating that against 1000$ she will approve my article and will maintain it for the next 8 months. I see this as a potential scam but as long as this is my first article in Wikipedia I am not sure if this is just a scam or this is some agent working for Wikipedia and trying to win some extra cash for work which is usually free. Strange aspect of the conversation was that the conversation happened in WhatsApp not in the Wikipedia website (as normally happened till now). Could you please provide me with some information and also check what is the status of my draft because I think that I am pretty close to approval and she knows it (if she really is a moderator for Wikipedia) and just before publishing the article she tries to earn extra money. I am open to hear your opinion and I hope that soon my article will be approved :)

Best Regards, Lstr1 (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lstr1, that is a scam and unfortunately a common one. Wikipedia will never ask for money in exchange for editing services.
Please immediately follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning and report the user to the Wikimedia Foundation. qcne (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Lstr1: I've no idea who Laida Fareed is, but you're right, this is almost certainly a scam; see WP:SCAM for advice on dealing with it. And do not pay any money, there's a high chance you won't get anything for it, nor get it back. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the fast response. I will definitely report this lady. Lstr1 (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Epiphytehsu

[edit]

I need an advice for how did the article "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Epiphytehsu (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 28 November 2024 review of submission by IlikeCubepidia

[edit]

Dear Reader,

I trust this message finds you well. As part of my ongoing efforts to craft a comprehensive and highly informative tutorial, I am focusing on the nuanced task of opening a Chromebook while simultaneously holding a full glass of coconut juice. It would be nice if you gave me any tips or improvments for next time because my article got rejected which i could not understand why. IlikeCubepidia (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vandalise Wikipedia, @IlikeCubepidia, which is what your draft was. You may be blocked from editing if you vandalise further. qcne (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IlikeCubepidia: I've deleted your draft (such as it was), as it clearly had nothing to do with our objective of building an encyclopaedia. Please find a different platform for your tutorials. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry and did not have any intent to vandilize wikipedia but its just very hard to find things to write about that someone else hasnt written about these days. IlikeCubepidia (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IlikeCubepidia: there are countless ways to contribute here, besides creating new articles. In fact, new users would be well advised to contribute in just about any other way, before attempting to write their first article. I will post some suggestions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IlikeCubepidia Check out Special:Homepage which includes suggested edits to existing articles which would be a really good place to start. qcne (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Purnarthapms

[edit]

I wish to know in detail why the request was declined. Moreover, this is the page of a renowned Indian Entrepreneur. In the reference section, all the key references have been provided pertaining to the person. Request you to kindly review the same. Purnarthapms (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Purnarthapms: because it was purely promotional, with no evidence of notability.
And you clearly have a conflict of interest, which must be disclosed without delay. I've already posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no undisclosed payment. I am an employee of this company and I have posted the information of my owner. Kindly explain how this can be an undisclosed payment. I have also included all the credible references for you to ensure the correctness of the content. Do let me know what else do you need. Purnarthapms (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you are an employee, it is mandatory that you make a declaration on your User Page. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID immediately. qcne (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Purnarthapms: your very next edit should be to disclose your paid-editing status, before you find yourself blocked.
And please don't open a new thread with each comment, just add to this thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have upaded the user page as per the guidelines. Request you to kindly help me publish the draft again. Purnarthapms (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Purnarthapms. Unfortunately your username is against policy and you will need to change it.
As for Draft:Rahul Rathi, I see no indication that this person meets our strict notability criteria. The draft is also written in an inappropriate way for an encyclopaedia. Therefore the draft will not be published.
Have a read of Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any further questions. qcne (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Mayommugezi

[edit]

I want to know what is missing on my article? Mayommugezi (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that Mayom meets our special notability criteria, @Mayommugezi. You can find the criteria at WP:NPEOPLE. qcne (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 28 November 2024 review of submission by 102.85.58.140

[edit]

Alimansi Wanzu Ainomugisha well known as Spyda Mc is a Ugandan hip hop rapper, Mc, and Events Host.

Spyda Mc was born in 1986 Alimansi Wanzu Ainomugisha. He started his music career in early 90s as a Underground Rapper until 2000s and he put his music career on hold to teacher Rap in the Slums of Kampala and outside the country. In 2024 he changed to Afro Beats and released songs like Abantu Mukisa. He released his breakthrough through song "Abantu Mukisa" in 2024 and he was nominated in several awards across the country. Spyda Mc was the first African to do the song cover of Dear Mama by Tupac Shakur. 102.85.58.140 (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and after it has been rejected, you do not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 28 November 2024 review of submission by P.S Parvez islam

[edit]

My life line P.S Parvez islam (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, your draft needs to be in English. If you would prefer to contribute in Hindi, please go to the Hindi Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P.S Parvez islam: that's not a question, did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P.S Parvez islam: do not do that again, you are already getting quite close to a block even without spamming this help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MD parvez islam

[edit]

My life line P.S Parvez islam (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? qcne (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Ashok76yadav

[edit]

hello sir way you are rejected my artical Ashok76yadav (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashok76yadav: This draft has been rejected as the product of an AI chatbot and will not be considered further unless rewritten by yourself without using the AI. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashok76yadav AI generated promotional spam, which is prohibited. qcne (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Edward200211

[edit]

What is wrong with the page Edward200211 (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, @Edward200211, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and doesn't host biographic articles about non-notable Youtubers. qcne (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You state this but there are plenty of much less notable people on Wikipedia. Understood that it's an encyclopedia - TheReactionKing (Edward Speller) is known, gathered over 4 Million views across YouTube alone. 12,000,000 if we include all channels. Over, 50,000 subscribers if we add all channels. Theres people on Wiki with just a date of birth and place of birth. This is certainly more notable than a lot of Wiki pages. I request it's accepted. Edward200211 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do go ahead and provide three strong reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage of Edward. qcne (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward200211 Wikipedia contains many sub-par articles. They usually date from the Wild West days of Wikipedia. Times have changed. There is only so much time we have to clear them out. If you would like to tell us about a few then we will look at them individually. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like my draft accepted. I believe 50,000 collective subs as well as 12,000,000 consolidated views is worthy enough of a Wikipedia page. Even more recent pages have less information and popularity than this. Not just "wild west days" of Wikipedia. Edward200211 (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward200211 With respect, your desire to have what appears to be your autobiography accepted has no value here. The only thing which has value is references which pass WP:42. There is much work to do. Please do that work, then the rejecting reviewer may consider reversing their rejection. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viewcounts do not contribute to notability, @Edward200211. As I've stated, give me some strong reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage and I will assess. qcne (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409

[edit]

it's my request to approve my page for an punjabi singer 'Alfaaz" Adityaksingh409 (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityaksingh409: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adityaksingh409 totally unreferenced and will not go forward 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:25, 28 November 2024 review of submission by Orange sticker

[edit]

Hi there, I submitted this draft for review as I was aware there was already a redirect. Now I have discovered that in the redirect's history there was already a full article, so I have restored this. How can I withdraw this draft from the review queue? Orange sticker (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Orange sticker  Done. I removed the request for review. if you wish for the draft to be deleted please just blank the page, or reply here and sometime will handle that for you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll blank it when I've checked if any of the references can be used on the other article. Orange sticker (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

[edit]

03:43, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Killianordono

[edit]

i had to submit multiples times because of people making changes but it is the right requirement for a page. Killianordono (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Killianordono: None of your sources are usable (the only one that isn't an online storefront or social media is Genius), and even if they were they aren't properly cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
properly cited? as in what how do you do that and i didnt know any sources because i myself is making it about me so there really isnt any sources its the actual person who knows themselves the most writing the article. Killianordono (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Killianordono: I linked Help:Referencing for beginners above. As to the actual person who knows themselves the most we absolutely cannot rely on "just trust me bro", especially if the person asserting that is the subject themselves. We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to fact-checking and other editorial processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ive fixed the article can it be submitted now? Killianordono (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because all of your sources are still unusable (as they're the same ones dismissed before) and you still haven't actually properly cited them. (Those angry red notes are malformed cites.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:12, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

How long does a draft need to be for the submission to be accepted? I translated an article from chinese wikipedia but the draft is pretty short compared to some other AfC submissions because tonnes of info related to it are classified Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: Length isn't relevant, compliance with English Wikipedia's sourcing/notability requirements is. Straight translations generally don't work for this reason. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Divya Ramadoss

[edit]

I dont understand why my article is getting rejected. it is not promotion angle, i strongly feel the article is not an advertisement of the person.kindly help. Divya Ramadoss (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Divya Ramadoss: The article does a lot of editorialising, and is filled with as much buzzwords as your average badly-written article on a company. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 04:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will revise the article to remove any promotional language and ensure it is neutral and fact-based, supported by reliable, third-party sources. The subject is notable for its contributions to the society, with coverage in reputable publications like economic times. Please let me know if there are additional specific changes needed to meet Wikipedia's standards. I appreciate your guidance. Divya Ramadoss (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Divya Ramadoss You took a picture of Mrs. Britto and she posed for you. You also were apparently at a wedding that she attended. Please describe your connection to her. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. I have no personal or professional connection to Mrs. Britto. The photo was taken with her consent during a photoshoot for an interview for Galatta Media. My intention is solely to contribute verifiable and neutral content about her based on publicly available, reliable sources. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Divya Ramadoss (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Divya Ramadoss: that doesn't really answer the question that was posed. From the photos alone, it would seem that you keep bumping into the subject, and taking photos of her, which would suggest some sort relationship. Or else you didn't take these photos, and cannot therefore claim them as your own work. Could you please clarify? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your follow-up. To clarify, I am a freelance social media marketing professional and was commissioned by Galatta Media to assist with content creation for an interview featuring Mrs. Britto. The photos were taken as part of this project with her consent. However, if the photo is a concern, I am happy to remove it to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. Please let me know how best to proceed. Divya Ramadoss (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:36, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Aesthemii

[edit]

how do i fix my draft article to it could pass the review? what more reference do i need ? what more do i include? Aesthemii (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aesthemii first of all, you need to properly format the references using inline citations, instead of dumping them at the bottom of the draft. You also need more reliable sources. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:17, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Intenselatte

[edit]

not sure what i need to add to make it sufficient Intenselatte (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately nothing, @Intenselatte, as I see nothing that makes this person meet our Wikipedia:Notability criteria. qcne (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Intenselatte What is your connection with this person, as you took a picture of them? 331dot (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:01, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Aaron Bradley10

[edit]

Approval For Aaron Bradley Page. Aaron Bradley10 (talk) 10:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bradley10 You will need to resubmit the draft for review for it to be considered, which you should only do if you have addressed the concerns of the last reviewer. Note that writing about yourself, while not absolutely forbidden, is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. We don't want to know what you say about yourself, only what independent reliable sources choose to say about you. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your user page, you say you have been paid by Aaron Bradley- if you are not him, you must change your username immediately, please do so via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:55, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Veer27Gupta

[edit]

I was creating a new page about ISKCON UJJAIN but something is missing there which makes it declining again and again I'm unable to understand what changes should be done to make it accepted Veer27Gupta (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Veer27Gupta: the draft is unreferenced, and only lists the subject's own website as sources. No subject can establish its own notability; we need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can I provide reference of wikipedia and resources other than only using their website will make the article publishable, or I have to do some more changes Veer27Gupta (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Veer27Gupta: since you ask, yes, you will probably need to rewrite much of this. Wikipedia articles mostly summarise what independent and reliable sources have previously published about a subject. So you need to start by finding such sources, summarising them (in your own words – no copypasting!), and citing each source against the information it has provided. That will give you the appropriate content, required referencing, and the necessary evidence of notability. You may then supplement this with small amount of factual and non-contentious information from primary sources such as the subject's website, but the draft should be predominantly based on third party sources, not on what you know about this subject or what the subject wants to tell the world about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

I received a comment in my talk page which claimed that my draft had been "created" but when i tried to search it turns out it was not an article yet. May i ask what is going on? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: I think it's someone playing games. I'll go have a word with them... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Zoe Sharma

[edit]

Because even after providing for reliable references my article is rejected and now I can't resubmit it since the option has been disabled. Zoe Sharma (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoe Sharma: that is correct, this draft has been rejected, because after multiple reviews there is no meaningful referencing, and even less any evidence of notability. That's is the end of the road for this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through the references that I have provided, they are meaningful as well as reliable. Zoe Sharma (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoe Sharma: they are not meanintful, they are completely meaningless; they aren't even proper references, just websites. References are meant to support information in the draft. These just point to the home pages of random websites. And they are not cited anywhere in the text, merely piled on at the bottom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned 2 such references which are mentioned in the text. However they were also rejected. Zoe Sharma (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoe Sharma: there are no references "mentioned in the text". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoe Sharma: You have a one-sentence "draft" which makes no mention of any outlets, and your sources are all website homepages, rather than articles on those domains as we require. We're not going to spend hours hunting down the articles you're trying to cite because you're not inclined to do the work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one rejecting the draft, I should perhaps be clear about this: I searched both Hindustan Times and Washington Post for mentions of Era Joshi, but there was nothing. Also, the draft text is copied straight from Joshi's own website (which has no other info). It's rather obvious that Era Joshi is simply not notable. Maybe she will become notable in the future, but not yet. --bonadea contributions talk 21:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:53, 29 November 2024 review of submission by Bibi Raheela

[edit]

Dear I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted an article about my company, Digitonz, but it was unfortunately rejected. I understand there may be areas for improvement, and I would appreciate your guidance on how I can enhance the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

I have been working in this field since 2014 and registered my company in 2024. I want to ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines, and I am open to any suggestions or support you can provide in making the necessary improvements.

Could you please advise on what changes I need to make to improve the article? Any help in pointing out specific areas for revision would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Bibi Roheel Sarhandi Founder, Digitonz Bibi Raheela (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. See WP:COI as well. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

[edit]

02:35, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Jhrtvunbyhhf

[edit]

im A FAMOUS roblox playwe Jhrtvunbyhhf (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. That doesn't make you notable though. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:36, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Jhrtvunbyhhf

[edit]

I'm a roblox plauer, @Dinogold4 i need help, now green avater Jhrtvunbyhhf (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhrtvunbyhhf You were already told no. Being a "famous" Roblox player does not make you notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Not to mention the undeclared WP:COI. Sandcat555 (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:02, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

Can anyone help me check whether the draft I submitted can be passed? I have revised it many times. Thank you very much. Rosebabysu (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu That is what the next review will tell you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 04:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to pull the plug on this draft, the sources simply aren't there, and to somehow magic notability out of thin air is a big ask. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Sujithsubash

[edit]

The information provided is genuine and it is of importance. The references given are also from reliable sources including research journals published by the government departments. Declaration of conflict of Interest: The Arya Vaidya Pharmacy (Coimbatore) Limited was the parent company of my previous employer. But this has nothing to do with the entry nor I am receving any payments from them for doing this entry. Sujithsubash (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sujithsubash: whether a journal of research in a pseudoscience can be truly reliable is debatable, I guess, but regardless of that, most of the draft content is unreferenced. We need to see where the information comes from, so that it can be verified and assessed.
The draft is also overly promotional, with peacocky terms like "prestigious" and "most esteemed", and expressions like "epitomises the pinnacle of intellectual achievement" and "remarkable contributions to the field, particularly in uplifting Ayurveda". Your job is merely to describe the subject, not to praise or 'sell' it in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazingthe aspect of 'psedoscience' is very subjective and that is not the content here. These are the journals published by the Government of India and not by any 'psedo-body' or 'psedo-authors'. Those expressions like 'epitomises the pinnacle of intellectual acheivement' and 'remarkable contributions to the field, particularly in uplifting Ayurveda' was translation of what the award is by the National Daily in Malayalam. If that is the problem can you help me how can this be reworded. It was not my words and there is no item being 'sold' here. This award also is not available for 'purchase'. Disclosure: The awarding body was parent company of my previous employer and information in this is verifyable. I am not being paid for making this article. Please help to sort this constructively. Sujithsubash (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujithsubash: if those peacocky expressions were direct quotations, then they must be indicated as such with quotation marks, and supported with clear inline citations to the sources where they originated. Which was very much part of my point (and that of the reviewer): inadequate referencing makes it impossible for the reader to know where most of this information is coming from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help me to understand how a print only newpaper article should be referred here? It is pure ignorance of how to do. If you can guide to some reference on this referencing of print newspapers, please guide. Thank you, in advance. Sujithsubash (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sujithsubash: Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Examples explains this in some detail, and you can use the template Cite news for the citation itself – scroll down to "Usage", copy a template, and enter the information about the article you are citing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Ridgeman12

[edit]

This isn’t a fake Wikipedia for no reason, there actually is a streamer named Trod who has a dog named Remi. This is not a fake character. Ridgeman12 (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ridgeman12: sure. I have a dog, too. She's not a fake character, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Thenfactor

[edit]

I need assistance please as I have written a wholly unbiased, not promoting the artist and the 50 sources included within the Rick Beerhorst page are tested as independent of the artist, having done over a week's work of research on testing those sources. John Yau Art critic who has independently written of Rick Beerhorst the painter for 35 years, has been included with the article to give the article Wikipedia tested impartiality. Can someone please review the prejudice that is being given to this article, in order to have the painter substantiated and placed within Wikipedia which is his rightful place. Thenfactor (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

55 sources is a lot, @Thenfactor. You have some major Wikipedia:Citation overkill - does the first line really need nine sources!?
I don't think many volunteer reviewers are going to want to go into 55 sources to assess each, so give us three and only three of the strongest sources you have, to make the job for the reviewer easier. Each of the three sources should meet this criteria of being independent, significant coverage, and from reliable places. qcne (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking on board on these advices and I thank you very much for your input. Thenfactor (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 30 November 2024 review of submission by GwnftLight

[edit]

I need help in editing my article GwnftLight (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @GwnftLight, the draft has now been rejected and so will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 30 November 2024 review of submission by GwnftLight

[edit]

I'm finding it difficult to create a new article GwnftLight (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GwnftLight: are you trying to create another draft on the same subject? Because that wouldn't be a good idea. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I tried editing based on the comments received but the submission was not responsive GwnftLight (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GwnftLight: this subject is clearly not notable, there is no point in creating another draft on it. Please find another subject to write about. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also finding it difficult to create a new draft on another subject entirely GwnftLight (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It kept redirecting me to the rejected draft GwnftLight (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GwnftLight: you can create a subpage in your personal space, you just have to give it a unique name, like User:GwnftLight/sandbox2 or User:GwnftLight/newdraft, etc.
Or you can go to WP:YFA and use the article creation wizard there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks GwnftLight (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Brazbiog

[edit]

This is my first article. I'd appreciate any feedback to improve the current draft. Brazbiog (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brazbiog: you've submitted the draft, so you will get feedback (of sorts) when a reviewer gets around to assessing it. Superficial glance suggests everything looks okay. Can't say more than that, as we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That makes sense, sorry for overstepping. Brazbiog (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brazbiog: no problem at all, no harm in asking. ;) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:36, 30 November 2024 review of submission by 70.15.62.238

[edit]

Hupmapskhpugas 70.15.62.238 (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as nonsense. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 30 November 2024 review of submission by Jazzman6500

[edit]


Article rejected, assistance requested I recently submitted this article but it was rejected. Any help please:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Society_of_St._John Jazzman6500 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jazzman6500 I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Please review the decline message, and the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

[edit]

02:08, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Deerfield-Hearst

[edit]

why is it being rejected? Deerfield-Hearst (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the reviewer but just by looking at it it is obviously not notable and seems to be extremely biased and opnion based. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS ColinFine (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:22, 1 December 2024 review of submission by 3DTAILEDMUSIC

[edit]

The draft was again rejected. What am I doing wrong and what can I add/change? 3DTAILEDMUSIC (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3DTAILEDMUSIC it has been declined not rejected, meaning there is still room for improvement. You need more source about the company specifically, not their games. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @3DTAILEDMUSIC. You need to make sure that (nearly) all your sources meet the triple criteria in WP:42, that is, they are:
  • published by a reputable publisher
  • in no way connected to the subject or their associates
  • containing significant coverage of the subject of the article.
ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:10, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Entersorce

[edit]

This needs to be published ASAP IT IS RELEVANT Entersorce (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article is biased, unsourced and not notable. The submission has been rejected and likely would not be considered. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Entersorce

[edit]

I re-edited the entire thing made it more comprehensive and less promotional. Please review it. Entersorce (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Entersorce it's still completely unsourced and not notable at all. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entersorce, unreferenced biographies of living people are forbidden by policy on Wikipedia. Try submitting some policy compliant content instead. Cullen328 (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:39, 1 December 2024 review of submission by 175.157.84.85

[edit]

Give Me an advice to edit this, This topic has wide coverage and this artist is verified person. This artist has google knowledge panel, Youtube official artist channel, verified spotify, boomplay, tiktok, musixmatch etc. And has lot of article about this artist on peliplat, issuewire, medium etc.

I'm not a sock puppet, I just need to inform that, this artist is eligible for wikiarticle. 175.157.84.85 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is: don't edit it. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the draft is reliable or independent. Having Google knowledge panels, Youtube channels, or accounts/channels/pages at spotify, musicmatch, boomplay, other streaming websites or social media websites is irrelevant, since those things don't show any notability, and can't be used as aources in Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you insane ? What do you mean those are not reliable sources ? What are reliable sources for a musician to be posted on Wikipedia ?? Daupdaup (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Daupdaup: No, I'm not. By "none of the sources is reliable", I mean that the sources do not meet the criteria for acceptability that the Wikipedia community has agreed on. Reliable sources for musicians are the same type of sources that are reliable for other topics. WP:RS and WP:MUSICBIO has more information. --bonadea contributions talk 20:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

My draft was recently declined due to referencing issues. I tried to contact the reviewer via talk page but I got no response and after some time it was archived. May I ask where i can improve my draft? Considering the little amount of info i could find, i would consider it pretty good already. P.S.: The article for the 7th marine brigade exists on chinese wikipedia(https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E8%A7%A3%E6%94%BE%E5%86%9B%E6%B5%B7%E5%86%9B%E9%99%86%E6%88%98%E9%98%9F%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%83%E6%97%85), I am purely translating it and adding more info Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: aside from the referencing issue, your draft has the related but separate problem of insufficient evidence of notability, given that the sources are almost all primary and/or associated with the Chinese government.
The fact that an article on this subject exists in zh.wiki is irrelevant. Each language version is a separate project with its own policies and requirements. AFAIK, the en.wiki requirements are the most onerous, therefore it often happens that when translating from other versions, the sources need to be supplemented to meet our standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is sort of inevitable that most sources are primary and/or associated with the chinese goverment in some way, however i don't really see a problem with that so far as i can still find more sources
As for evidence of notability, I think it is notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it. It is relatively famous within mainland china for such a special forces unit and additionally it has been involved in operations in the gulf of aden and is considerably notable compared to some existing articles(e.g. the Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade or the USS LCI(L)-326).(or maybe i have interpreted evidence of notability as something completely separate) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thehistorianisaac, when Wikipedia says "notable" we don't mean "famous" or "well known". Notable by our definition can be thought to mean "noted in multiple reliable secondary sources". More info at Wikipedia:Notability. qcne (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I kinda already had the feeling that evidence of notability is a completely separate thing from notability guidelines. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, the AfC process is voluntary (as long as you don't have a conflict of interest in this subject and aren't under any restrictions which would prevent you from creating articles), and therefore you're free to move this into the main article space yourself, if you disagree with the review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for some more info, what kind of sources would be considered reliable secondary sources?
Most of the stuff i could find online were either primary sources or secondary sources citing the primary source. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are what is being looked for.....assuming that the source has performed fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources citing the primary source are perfectly fine, so long as they aren't just blindly copy-pasting it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Edouglasww

[edit]

I'm trying to add more references to this page so that it will be accepted to Wikipedia but Wiki has changed how to add citations/references and I don't quite understand how to add links/citations to new stuff that's been added. The old system involved putting the citiation/reference code in the piece, now it's just a five or six letter "code" with the info in the reflist at the bottom. Can't find anything explaining the changes. Edouglasww (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Daupdaup

[edit]

why did it got rejected ?

Laurent Fourbeur is a living person with references that are directly sent to his YouTube Channel.

I need answers.

Laurent Fourbeur's Manager. Daupdaup (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Daupdaup. You wrote a spam draft, @Daupdaup, and I have rejected it as it's pure promotion which is prohibited on Wikipedia. There is no indication that Laurent passes our notability criteria for musicians.
As Laurent's manager, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Service to declare this conflict of interest: please immediately follow the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI.
Don't demand answers from volunteer reviewers. qcne (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Ajvloon

[edit]

Hi there! I recently submitted a new article for the Tus open protocol for resumable uploads. Tus is an open-source internet communications protocol that is seeing considerable industry use and is currently also in the process of being included in the official HTTP protocol, which serves as the foundation for the world wide web.

I was disappointed to see my submission declined and I am now looking for some assistance to help make sure it will be accepted in the next review.

The first reason the article was declined seems clear to me: I need to find even more independent and reputable sources to support the information in the article. I thought it was already sufficiently annotated, but apparently not.

The second reason the article was declined is not clear to me.

My question then:

Which part of the article submission is considered to be `neologism'? And how do I fix this? 

Ajvloon (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link, the whole url is not used. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Was trying to find out how to fix it myself :) Ajvloon (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajvloon: The subject itself seems to be considered a neologism by the reviewer, which doesn't seem to make sense here, I agree. You're writing about something tangible (a computer protocol), rather than a term definition. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right! Thanks. I feared that might be the case. So how do I deal with this potential reason for denial once I am ready to resubmit the article for review? Ajvloon (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Reading Beans who can hopefully explain their reasoning. qcne (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to uncheck the neologism tag. There are unsourced statements there hence the decline for having unverified information. Could I have been wrong. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thanks for taking the time. So, once I hunt down and add more independent, reliable sources for the unverified claims, I'm good to go for a resubmit? Ajvloon (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 1 December 2024 review of submission by BusMapper

[edit]

Please explain why this draft is not valid for submission. BusMapper (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:23, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Sukdev Mahapatra

[edit]

But Why ? Sukdev Mahapatra (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukdev Mahapatra: We are not a host for personal webpages. We also do not cite social media, and sources connected to the subject themselves do not help for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Sukdev Mahapatra

[edit]

please aproved this article because this person is Need to article pannel Sukdev Mahapatra (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukdev Mahapatra Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not social media like LinkedIn. Has your school told you to create this article? qcne (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:49, 1 December 2024 review of submission by CallMe BurntToast

[edit]

I have never made a wiki before and i need someone to help me make it look nice and add info i didn't even think to add. CallMe BurntToast (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CallMe BurntToast We're not here to be co-editors, just to offer advice. One does not make a "wiki"(an entire website, composed of articles, of which Wikipedia is but one example), one makes a Wikipedia article. Creating a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that new users first gain experience and knowledge by first spending much time editing existing articles in areas that interest them, as well as to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia.
The vast majority of "YouTubers" do not merit Wikipedia articles, as they are not often written about in independent reliable sources. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:57, 1 December 2024 review of submission by Azcult

[edit]

Why was my article about my artist that I manage deleted? Azcult (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Azcult. You wrote a purely promotional draft which is prohibited on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Spam. It was deleted for that reason.
As the artists' manager, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Service to declare this conflict of interest: please immediately follow the instructions at both WP:PAID and WP:COI. qcne (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

[edit]

03:16, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Tyriopp

[edit]

comment was AI generated spam? how is that so? elaborate on that please and im open to advice 

Tyriopp (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyriopp, ChatGPT and other AIs/LLMs write drafts with certain details that human-written drafts usually don't have. Your draft shows signs of being written by AI. We don't generally elaborate on what those signs are because people might use that information to try to sneak AI-generated drafts into Wikipedia without anyone noticing, and there can be major problems with AI-generated articles - things like hallucinated references, for example. StartGrammarTime (talk) 12:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tone is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia regardless of any AI or ChatGPT use or maybe because of it? Theroadislong (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Stephanietheva

[edit]

I received this messaage: 'Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.' does this mean I can not try to rewrite the article again?

Also I received this rejection reason: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' does this mean the person I was trying to do an article about isn't popular enough?

How can I get a wikipedia page for the person I am trying to create for? What makes someone notable enough? Stephanietheva (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The linked article is an article, not a draft, and it was published in 2023. I'm guessing you meant Draft:Ivy Cohen.
My opinion about this draft - it has no inline citations, which has a specific guide. The tone of the article is quite promotional. This page may help with that. Looking at the 4 sources, all of them seem weak. The first three of them are not independent, and the last one does not really help with notability. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Stephanietheva. Yes, "rejected" means that this draft cannot go any further.
Notability in Wikipedia has a special meaning, which is different from popularity (and from fame, importance, influence, and all the other conventional meanings). It mostly means that there is enough independent reliably published material about the subject to base an article on, remembering 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.
If you cannot find suitable sources (each of which should meet all three criteria in WP:42) then the subject is probably not notable, and you should not waste any more time on this attempt. (And if the rejecting reviewer says that they are not sufficiently notable, you can generally reckon that they have gone looking for sources and not found them).
If you can find sources that demonstrate notability, then you should approach the rejecting reviewer directly, citing those sources, and asking them to reconsider. But please do not bother them unless you have solid evidence that Cohen meets the criteria.
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) 15:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:58, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Stephanietheva

[edit]
Duplicate discussion. The original thread seems to be located above this one.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I received this messaage: 'Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted.' does this mean I can not try to rewrite the article again?

Also I received this rejection reason: 'This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.' does this mean the person I was trying to do an article about isn't popular enough?

How can I get a wikipedia page for the person I am trying to create for? What makes someone notable enough? Stephanietheva (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanietheva, did you click the link in the message? It explains notability as Wikipedia means it, and will tell you what you need to find if you want to show that your subject is notable and thus should have an article. StartGrammarTime (talk) StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

04:13, 2 December 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

[edit]

I am writing to see if I can receive a response regarding an archived ticket that I have logged with HelpDesk: 04:38, 7 November 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

I already added a response to this archived ticket however I have realized that I may not get a response, therefore I'm logging a new ticket.

In regards to the archived ticket, I was given the feedback that I should improve the Wikipedia page in regards to the Notability and WP:GNG policies. As the draft submission was rejected due to not meeting these policies.

As per the feedback, I have made changes to the draft and have added sources which cover the topic, hopefully complying with the WP:GNG and Notability policies. Could you please let me know if these polices are met now and if it would be suitable for me to go ahead and submit it. Any further feedback is much appreciated as it would assist in updating the draft even further!

Thank you in advance! DebugDruid (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might have wanted to directly discuss with the reviewer who rejected your draft (@Shadow311 in this case) first. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DebugDruid: Submit the draft for review – that's how you request feedback on notability. The draft has not been rejected (which would mean that you couldn't resubmit it), only declined, which means that you have the option ti resubmit. Your fellow editors who volunteer as reviewers don't do pre-reviews at this help board. --bonadea contributions talk 06:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:51, 2 December 2024 review of submission by ORISEXP

[edit]

Hello Community! I hope I find you doing well. I created a Wikipedia page yesterday and the submission was declined. Is there any natural cause for this? ORISEXP (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORISEXP Please see the message left at the top of your draft by the reviewer, and also read the policies linked to therein. I would ask you what your connection is to this musician, as you appear to have taken a photo of him in his vehicle. 331dot (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Seblmnal

[edit]

i was rejected and i want to fix the problem Seblmnal (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seblmnal: the problem isn't easily fixed; there is nothing in this draft to suggest that you are notable in the Wikipedia context. Focus on your career, get covered in the media, maybe win a Grammy or two, and one day someone will surely write an article on you. (Even then that someone shouldn't be you, though – see WP:AUTOBIO). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Pancras Hogendoorn

[edit]

I have added a reference which I use 3 times in the text and it now gives: Cite error: The named reference Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937) was invoked but never defined (see the help page). I looked at the help page but cannot get it fixed. Can you help me out? Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pancras Hogendoorn: this isn't strictly speaking an AfC matter anymore, now that the draft has been published; you should ask at the Teahouse or the Help desk instead. But since you're here... the problem is in the first citation: <ref name="Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)"> This is calling a source named "Andreas Wieser (Zurich; 1993) Inaugural dissertation. Der Pathologe Paul Ernst (1859-1937)", but no such source name has been defined. The solution is actually easier to do than to explain, so I'll go and fix it for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!! Pancras Hogendoorn (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Kirkoconnell

[edit]

I follow the Digital Civics page and I went to University with Estelle and have followed her career for a while now.

I am just noticing some declines in articles write by or about her. I suspect she tried to edit her own articles, at least from what I can tell here.

I guess I thought I would request less vague assistance. On this article in particular, it seems rather well written with great sourcing, yet it states that the sources are not enough.

I've checked them and they seem fine to me. Now, I have been editing on Wikipedia for a while now and I know rules have changed, but is there something explicitly wrong with the sources listed that can be addressed as opposed to this vague "Not the Right Kind of sources", as it lists. When I reviewed the requirements for that page and compared them to the links, they actually seem to meet the criteria.

Anyway, looking at this here, I think Estelle's issue was that she believed it was OK for her to edit her own articles, which I know is a no-go. I am willing to write the articles but I don't want to be in this circular trap of modifying an article, getting it taken down for "sources issues" and constantly fight back and forth on it.

So can I get clearer direction on what the sourcing issue is exactly so that I may address it?

All I really know is that Dr. Clements really did do research, really is a Digital Civics expert, and developed at least two concepts in the field, well the field itself (Digital Civics) and Shadow Footprints, from the studies and articles she has released anyway.

Besides having attending University with Dr. Clements, I have followed her career has it took her from North America over to the UK and am keen on getting these concepts in Wikipedia. I do science communication and Digital civics in general, and Shadow Footprints as a concept, have been great insights to trying to solve the divide we see with information online.

So I am willing to work with people on what needs to be changed, but I do need a bit more than "source not be good". Kirkoconnell (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kirkoconnell: just to clarify, this draft was declined for lack of evidence that the subject is notable, not for inadequate sources per se. Notability, according to the general WP:GNG guideline, requires significant coverage directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. This draft cites mostly works by the subject, plus a few other primary sources, which doesn't satisfy GNG.
The other route for academics to demonstrate notability is described in the special WP:NPROF guideline, and more specifically in the list of criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. The main difference between this and GNG is that the focus is less on secondary sources (in fact, so much so that no secondary sources are needed at all), and more on career achievements and standing in the academic community. It may be that NPROF is easier to satisfy in this case, based on your description and a quick scan of the sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting watching the rules change constantly.
I think unless Estelle won a Noble prize, I doubt she could meet the requirements listed in modern academics.
I remember once that I was accused of hating Gay people because I deleted an account from someone who wasn't considered notable: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Drake_Jensen. They literally harassed me online until I stopped requesting that their account get deleted.
I wish you guys cared as much about the rules back then. Well, I give up. I tried to help but I guess the whole "Be Bold" thing is just BS.
I would ask for a greater clarification, as when I review what is posted and the sources I see it hit the checkmarks you are demanding, but when you review it you don't see that, but I suspect there is no further direction incoming. Just "this doesn't meet some weird standard IN MY OPINION because, sure, it matches the words of it but I DO NOT BELIEVE it matches the words, so therefore, it does not".
I get it.
Sorry I even tried. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kirkoconnell "Be bold" means we want people to act, but it doesn't mean they get a pass on policies and consultation with other editors/consensus. This process is usually voluntary, if you truly feel that the reviewer got it wrong, you are free to move the draft into the encyclopedia yourself, though you are rolling the dice that it will not be nominated for deletion. The main standard reviewers go by is "would this survive an Articles for deletion discussion"?
I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't care for this weird fighting.
When I religiously edited the site, people would fight with me COSNTANTLY about non-sense articles that never met standard, but the Wiki people would say "Be Bold" and keep the article.
NOW, I see a legit article with full citations that match literally every requirement to a Tee, and NOW there is a WHOLE NEW LEVEL of requirements to make an article, that cannot seem to accurately defined, but it's wrong because "reasons" and until I fix these ambiguous "reasons", the article cannot even be displayed. And when I ask for examples of the "reasons", I get no feedback whatever, or I get given a 55 page article and told to read it. Then I do read it, find no issues that match up, ask again where I made the mistake, and get zero actual feedback again.
I am just losing faith in Wikipedia in general. It seems if you are an idiot, you can make whatever article you want and it's cool. If you actually do research, try to cite things, people will delete the articles, say some vague non-sense that does not make sense in the context of the article, when you push back and ask for more explicit information, they just throw their hands up and say "find someone else".
"I know it's depressing to have something you worked on criticized and declined, but that doesn't mean we don't care about rules."
WHAT ****ING RULES? Where is the problem? THIS IS WHAT I AM ASKING. I get told "These sources don't cite this", where those sources are not meant to cite that, so what is the problem? Or I get told "Not enough secondary sources", I point to at least three that were in the article from the start and no one mentions secondary sources to me again but it's still a problem.
I WANT TO FIX THE ARTICLE. But saying vague non-sense and when they ask for more feedback because it seems what is being said doesn't match what the accused claim is, how am I supposed to fix it?
If you accuse me of stealing and I claim I have video evidence of myself in my house the whole day, your reply can't be "well stuff was stolen, deal with it" and expect me to be OK with that.
Unless you are on Wikipedia, apparently. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, what is unclear or vague about the reasons being given to you? They seem pretty clear to me- but it could just be me, truly. You were even told that WP:NPROF is the best pathway forward here. It doesn't require a Nobel Prize, but if you don't think you can show she meets those criteria, the more general notable person definition would be controlling.
Note that the nature of this process is that different reviewers will see different things at different times, and may not see what was seen before. That doesn't mean it is or is not still a problem.
I understand not wanting to fight- but that's sometimes necessary. This isn't a place to just post something and forget about it. You need to be here- active and defending it at least for a time. Not everyone wants to do that- which is fine- but that's the nature of a collaborative community with different people and different perspectives. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I again stress- if you feel the reviewer got it wrong, or this process is too bureaucratic and stressful- it's not required that you use it. You can move it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirkoconnell Can we skip the stuff about whether Wikipedia is fair or not, please.
Draft:Estelle Clements has been declined once by SafariScribe. In the event that you feel a review to be in any way not justifiable it is customary to ask that reviewer. It's fine to come here, but we cannot know what is in their mind.
I'm going to have a look at the draft and make my determination. I may agree with them or disagree. I'll let you know either way.
I'm no-one special. Just a reviewer. You'll still get my best opinion, whatever I am. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirkoconnell As promised, I have left a detailed review comment on the draft. This is as useful to you as a formal review. I have noted that I am currently unable to assess the contribution her authorship of papers makes towards her notability. We need other eyes for that.
I hope that meets your needs in your original post. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 2 December 2024 review of submission by Cael Thorington

[edit]

Why wont you accept my article I just want a page on wikipedia Cael Thorington (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cael Thorington People don't have "pages" on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has articles about people, typically written by independent editors. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. I suggest you focus on your career, if you truly meet the relevant notability criteria, someone will eventually write about you. Be aware that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessariluy desirable, there are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cael Thorington Do you pass WP:NATHLETE? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 2 December 2024 review of submission by The Politicians Page

[edit]

It's been frequently rejected, after adding references also. The Politicians Page (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you first must appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft directly. He seems to be a lower level regional party official; he wouldn't meet the notable politician definition as he does not hold public office. The coverage doesn't seem to be there to meet the broader notable person definition, this is why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that Tumblr and Facebook are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 2 December 2024 review of submission by 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8

[edit]

Hi, thank you so much for the feedback. Could you give some detailed feedback on how to improve it? I'd really like to see this article be posted. Thank you so much again for the review! 2607:F010:2E9:22:148F:C242:7DDC:8DC8 (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The previous reviews must remain on the draft. It was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's still written in an essay style. If you are able to fundamentally change the style of the draft to be more encyclopedic, you must first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

[edit]

06:14, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Abhayamohanty

[edit]

after repeated submission it's declined Abhayamohanty (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhayamohanty: that's correct. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Abhayamohanty

[edit]

can i resubmit the draft 

Abhayamohanty (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it has been rejected. It has no sources. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Ajeesh Sudhakar

[edit]

Hadn't the draft been sounding from a neutral point of view. Can you help with which portion it is the otherwise. Ajeesh Sudhakar (talk) 09:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have just summarized the routine activities of the company, not significant coverage of it in independent reliable sources that shows how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 3 December 2024 review of submission by RJClark1447

[edit]

Note: This question and the associated submission should be read by someone who considers him/herself an expert in international limited overs cricket. I have submitted an outline of my method for calculating targets and results in limited overs cricket matches interrupted (by rain), The Clark Curves, which was used for all cricket in South Africa from 1995 - 1998. This has been rejected for lack of references. I have cited 16 references made up of printed material, website material and famous international cricketers. I’m afraid that I can do no more than that. The current system in use (as specified by the ICC) is the Duckworth Lewis Stern method. The application of this method has been fraught with controversy. During the 2003 Cricket World Cup, it was invoked 5 times in very different circumstances. All 5 were controversial and the method was hammered in the media. At the end of the tournament Frank Duckworth wrote a 5 page explanation defending his method. “Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much” (Ref: William Shakespeare). I have a copy of Dr. Duckworth’s protest note if you’d like to see it. Steven Stern has (secretly) improved much of Duckworth/Lewis’ original, inaccurate data bringing, what is now his method, much closer to my 1995 original (first published 3 seasons before the DLS). However, my correspondence with Steven indicates that some of the fundamental tenets of the system e.g. the treatment of wickets, will never be corrected so, sooner or later, there will be another controversial calculation at a crucial time.

My objective in having the Clark Curves available on Wikipedia, before I die, is that when the ICC finally comes to its senses, another method is readily available. You may or may not have heard of my method (if you are old enough) but it was invoked in numerous ODIs in South Africa between 1995 and 1998. It was not discussed widely in the newspapers since none of the calculations was controversial and it would have continued to have been used in South Africa after 1999 had the ICC not imposed their preferred method on all member nations. I am aware that my method has weaknesses and I have done my best to correct them (my system is flexible enough to allow minor tweaks). Having the details available on Wikipedia would allow a wider discussion of the merits and demerits of both systems. Specifically, what must I do to meet with your requirements?

By the way, what is currently published on Wikipedia about the Duckworth Lewis system is way out of date. It is completely inaccurate and wildly misleading. Nobody could use it to accurately calculate a target in any circumstances. Unfortunately Steven Stern is unlikely to give you any more information since he is keeping his data secret from the general public. RJClark1447 (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJClark1447 you don't need to be an expert to see that the "Wickets" and "Unresolved Problems" are almost completely unsourced. Where is this information coming from? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RJClark1447 (ec) You cannot demand that only experts in cricket or cricket analysis interact with you. Aside from such people being present here is unlikely, Wikipedia is (mostly) written by lay people for lay people. If your work meets the criteria for inclusion, anyone will be able to see that. Please see WP:EXPERT. If you would prefer a project where only experts are permitted to contribute, those exist out there.
I apologize for being frank but Wikipedia is not a place to merely store information that you hope will be used to influence the sport of cricket in the future by its governing body. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic with significant coverage, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. If you do not have proper references available, this topic cannot be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RJClark1447: you say My objective in having the Clark Curves available on Wikipedia, before I die, is that when the ICC finally comes to its senses, another method is readily available. As explained above, Wikipedia is not the right place for that, per this policy. Why not use one of the many platforms available for publishing original thoughts? Wikipedia:Alternative outlets lists some of these. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was certainly one of the more interesting cases I've come across on this forum lately. :)
The only thing I would add is that it might be worth flagging this up at WP:WikiProject Cricket, where folks much more knowledgeable about cricket than yours truly (which really is not setting the bar very high!) congregate; for interest, if nothing else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 151.135.89.184

[edit]

What i need to do more to get it approved 151.135.89.184 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 2401:1900:2081:ECB1:0:0:0:1

[edit]

Imtiaz Ahmed is a famous actor. I found his personal information . 2401:1900:2081:ECB1:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. Wikipedia is not a mere host of information; articles must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the subject with significant coverage, showing(in this case) how they meet the definition of a notable actor. IMDB is not an acceptable source as it is user-editable. Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for block evasion, the account that created the draft is blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 3 December 2024 review of submission by 87.116.164.146

[edit]

Hi, we've been waiting two months for a review of our draft. How can we speed up the review on the music band page? 87.116.164.146 (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to speed up the process; please be patient. This process is entirely volunteer-driven, and drafts are reviewed in no particular order. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:22, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Qualitybeginshere

[edit]

I am a newbie in Wikipedia and want to add our company details in Wikipedia. Obviously, I am not the owner of the company, but working for the company and want to list on Wikipedia. Addii Biotech was founded in 2010 and continue working in the field of pharmaceuticals.

I need guidance to approve our Listing on Wikipedia. I have received declines, but need guidance to improve and submit it again. Qualitybeginshere (talk) 12:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitybeginshere First, you must comply with the Terms of Use-required paid editing policy and make a formal disclosure on your user page. I'll post more about this on your user talk page.
Wikipedia is not the place to do what you are attempting to do. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to "list" themselves. This is not a database of things that exist. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, what we call notability, such as a notable company. A Wikipedia article summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it is notable. You have just summarized the routine business activities of the company, which does not establish notability. You need to instead summarize what others have chosen to say about your company and how it is important/significant/influential as a company. I get that you think what your company does is important, but we only are interested in if others say what they see as important about it. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I posted there back in February. Please follow those instructions as soon as possible. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Marzada

[edit]

My submission was declined November 7th 2024 by Tesleemah with the request to "refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources and to rewrite the submission in a more encyclopedic format."

However the draft does have a total of 8 external references and 6 weblink from independent, reliable, published sources.

Also the style has been adapted from other Wikipedia entries, so I struggle to understand what EXACTLY I need to change in order to resubmit. Marzada (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzada I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The Espionage section is entirely unsourced. Part of the escape section is, too. If existing sources support that information, you need to place the references in with the text. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409

[edit]

this is a page for an indian punjabi artist called alfaaz ,as i created this page broader info about artist and i even added a references geniune articles about artist which suited for page acceptance Adityaksingh409 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have a single source(and it's a source of questionable quality(see WP:TOI) and you have not demonstrated that this person meets WP:NSINGER. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:37, 3 December 2024 review of submission by JAC2222

[edit]

This is a real news source in Columbus Ohio JAC2222 (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one doubts that it is real- but your draft is completely unsourced; any article about this news outlet must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it, showing how it is a notable organization. You haven't done that and the prospect of that happening seems low, so it was correctly rejected. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

[edit]

This is my second time submitting my draft, may I ask if there is a limit to how many times a draft can be declined? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thehistorianisaac: no, there is no limit, as such. As long as you keep making progress in addressing the decline reasons, we will keep reviewing. If, however, you're just resubmitting without even trying to improve things, or it starts to look like the draft hasn't any realistic chance of being accepted, then it will likely be rejected. So it's more about progress and prospects, rather than number of reviews. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Weasleyrian

[edit]

To @Bonadea

I respectfully request a reconsideration of the rejection notice for the SmarterMail draft. According to Wikipedia's Notability (Software) guidelines, computer programs are classified as creative works. Based on these criteria, I believe SmarterMail merits inclusion as it meets the necessary notability standards:

Discussion in Reliable Sources: SmarterMail has been discussed in multiple reliable sources, demonstrating its relevance and significance in the technology landscape. Wide Adoption Across Various Sectors: SmarterMail is widely used in universities, medical facilities, and government institutions as a primary source of communication. This broad utilization highlights its importance and reliability in critical sectors. Third-Party Documentation and Reviews: SmarterMail has been referenced in third-party manuals and subjected to reviews from reliable sources, further validating its notability. Presence in Scholarly and Published Literature: Searches conducted on Google Books and Google Scholar reveal numerous mentions of both SmarterMail and SmarterTools, underscoring its documented presence in academic and professional contexts. Recognition in Non-English Wikipedia Articles: SmarterMail and SmarterTools have been referenced in several non-English Wikipedia articles, including:


Additionally, SmarterTools is referenced in the Microsoft Windows server section of the MTA Software List, further demonstrating its relevance and application. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_mail_transfer_agents)

These points align with Wikipedia's standards for notability and inclusion, and I kindly urge you to reevaluate the draft based on this information. SmarterMail's widespread adoption, reliable documentation, and presence in scholarly and published works collectively support its eligibility for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering this appeal. I am happy to provide further information or references if needed. Weasleyrian (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Weasleyrian: We do not consider existing articles in other languages of Wikipedia to have any effect on notability. Each is its own community with its own standards for notability. We also will not consider requests made via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "We also will not consider requests made via chatbot"? Weasleyrian (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weasleyrian, your entire post from "I respectfully request" to "I am happy to provide" is AI-generated. I guess the ChatBot you're using doesn't know that what happens on other wikis is meaningless here, but now you can say you learned something about Wikipedia. Also, "SmarterMail and SmarterTools have been referenced" is really unclear. "Referenced"? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weasleyrian Where are the "multiple reliable sources" that discuss "SmarterTools"? Nothing else you mention contributes to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go!
  • López-Collar, R. 2015). Extension of the security module for the REKO Data Replicator. University of Computer Sciences. Thesis
  • Morales Vizuete, M.V. (2015). Integration of free distribution tools to perform technical support tasks for an Internet service provider. Quito:EPN. Thesis
  • Rashid, F. (2013). SmarterMail Review. PC Magazine.
  • Perschke, S. (2012). 6 Free Email Servers for A Small Business Compared. NetworkWorld Magazine.
  • Schiller, J. (2009). Visual Basic Express and JAVA Programs: Excel Weekly Options Trading, CreateSpace. Book
  • Hong, B. (2008). Building a Server with FreeBSD 7: A Modular Approach No Starch Press. Book
  • Elsagheer Mohamed, S.A. (2013). Efficient Spam Filtering System Based on Smart Cooperative Subjective and Objective Methods. Objective Methods. DOI: 10.4236/ijcns.2013.62011 Weasleyrian (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have those books to hand, do they contain significant in-depth coverage of Smarter Tools? Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do have in-depth coverage of SmarterMail, I did add them as a reference to another article, but my account was flagged by Drmies and marked it as "vandalism". Weasleyrian (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And were they at any point cited in this draft? If not, why not? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited, but changed around as I was working on the draft. I clicked "submit" thinking it would save, hence the multiple revisions. I was working with another user who was quite helpful sifting through the sources to determine if they're "reliable" or not. I send that user the list with no responses, then out of no where the draft was rejected. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I not allowed to use phrases like "respectfully request" or "happy to provide" in an appeal? Is it wrong to write in a respectful tone? Also, it's quite an assumption on your part to think I'm using a chat-box. Remember the risks of making assumptions. Addressing Jéské Couriano's comment: I understand that other languages operate independently, but my point remains that the SmarterMail draft meets notability requirements because (1) it is widely used and (2) I was able to find sufficient reliable sources to for the article. These factors formed the basis of my appeal to the rejecting user, Bonadea. Other users advised me to make this appeal to Bonadea directly. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "widely used" confers zero notability and you haven't told us what the "sufficient reliable sources" are yet so nobody can make a judgement. Theroadislong (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have to assume anything: I just ran your post through GPTZero. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that GPTZero isn’t perfect, right? The results should be taken with a grain of salt and considered as part of a bigger picture when assessing content authenticity. That said, no, I didn’t use a ChatBox like you assumed, so I think an apology is in order. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have edited about no other topic, and you seem to have a strong personal investment in it. Do you have a connection with this topic? 331dot (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I do not. Long story short, I am a computer science student at Grand Canyon University in Phoenix, Arizona. As an assignment, our professor challenged us to write a Wikipedia article about small software products out in the market. I had no idea how difficult this would be, now I am seeing why it was more of a "challenge". The only investment I get is a grade :) Yes, I know, other editors mentioned that the professor should've directed me to an assignment page and I jumped to the chance without fully understanding the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia's guidelines. Weasleyrian (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry that your professor has put you in a difficult position; it is a poor assignment to give you to require you to write an article and have it accepted. Your professor may wish to examine the Wikipedia Education Program materials to design lessons and assignments that are less likely to put students in this position. This is a particularly poor assigment, as "small software products" most likely do not draw the coverage needed to merit a Wikipedia article- as you are finding out the hard way. Feel free to show your professor this message and discussion. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was all pointed out to the user on their talk page on 19th November. perhaps they need to find another "small software product". Theroadislong (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Weasleyrian: I didn't use an LLM detector, and I could tell it was chatbot-generated because it includes a fair amount of redundant text/arguments and uses <topic>:<argument>-style writing typical of LLM output we see on Wikipedia. If you don't want to be accused of using a chatbot, don't write like one. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Divnanoc

[edit]

Declined submission. On 29 November 2024 Jannatulbaqi was declined submission of article “Frederick Charles Cooper” (an English artist of XIX century). The explanation was: “This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)”. At the same date the article about the Subject was successfully published in Russian part of Wikipedia where the editors considered the same sources sufficiently competent and authoritative.

Small summary about the Subject and the References. The Subject was: (i) an English artist of XIX century, one of so called “the lost names” in fine arts; (ii) was the full member of Royal Academy of Arts; (iii) had a several exhibitions at the Royal Academy of Arts and other significant places in London, England; (iv) more than fifty of his works are stored and exhibits in the British Museum; (v) was the only painter who drew the process, monuments and other heritage from one of the famous archaeological expeditions in the history of Great Britain.

The References. The “significant coverage” of the Subject supports by: (i) John Curtis (*ref. 3), who was a Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum 1989-2011, and presently Chief Executive Officer of the Iran Heritage Foundation, President of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq, and a Trustee of the Honor Frost Foundation; (ii) Algernon Graves (*ref. 5), an author of the most completed encyclopedia of British artists arisen or graduated from Royal Academy; (iii) Huon Mallalieu (*ref. 9), one of the world's leading and respected art historians, author of “Dictionary of British Watercolour Artists up to 1920”; (iv) Sir Austen Henry Layard, who was an English Assyriologist, traveller, cuneiformist, art historian, draughtsman, collector, politician and diplomat. Plus a few sources with lesser known, but no less reputable, backgrounds.

Could anyone to clarify me please (because I still have no reply of Mr. Jannatulbaqi) what coverage is could be more significant than coverages of two leading encyclopedists and the world`s most important specialist in this area? 

Divnanoc (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Divnanoc: there are two ways to demonstrate the notability of an artist, either by
  • the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, or
  • the special WP:ARTIST one, which requires significant career achievements and impact.
Please study both guidelines and decide which one you are able to meet, then provide the evidence to support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. My arguments based on the rules of WP:ARTIST
  1. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Frederick Charles Cooper is widely cited by scientists and/or art historians, especially in connection of excavations at Kuyunjik and Nimrud, exploration of the lost cities of Assyria and Iraq. Sir Austen Henry Layard, who led the British Assyrian expedition of 1849-51, acknowledged the artist`s role, writing in his 1853 book Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon that the "assistance of a competent artist was most desirable, to portray with fidelity those monuments which injury and decay had rendered unfit for removal...". John Curtis, the longtime Keeper of the Middle East Department at the British Museum, described Layard's relationship with F. C. Cooper and his other artists (In Ermidoro, Stefania; Riva, Cecilia (eds.). — Venice, Italy: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2020. — ISBN 978-88-92990-00-5) as very complicated, but productive. Huon Mallalieu, the leading art historian, dedicated to artist an article in his The dictionary of British watercolour artists up to 1920 (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Antique Collectors' Club, 1986. — ISBN 978-1-85149-036-3). Algernon Graves in "The Royal Academy of Arts: a complete dictionary of contributors and their work from its foundation in 1769 to 1904" (1-st edition. (англ.). — London: Henry Graves & Co. and George Bell and Sons, 1905. — P. 146) also mentioned Cooper, as notable painter of the epoch.
  2. "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Is a subjective definition. Some of the fine art specialists saw his own manner in such works like "Souvenir". The art historian H.L. Mallalieu wrote in his dictionary that "Cooper's landscapes are effective, but his figures can be rather shaky...". Personally, i find it like not as good enough to talk about unique or specific technique somehow, but somebody may have the different point. By the way, Picasso borrowed a lot of his technique, but this is not decreasing his significance.
  3. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)". The were significant and very unique work called Diorama of Nineveh exhibited in London in 1851. The full and detailed description can be found in a book of William Shoberl (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Diorama_of_Nineveh.html?id=U6ULPAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y).
  4. "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". The only fact that British Museum has about 50 Cooper`s works in their permanent collection provides an evidence of significance (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG177486).
Divnanoc (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If the Russian-language version of Wikipedia has published an article on this artist is either up to them, and has no bearing on whether we will publish one here on the English-language one, since each language version is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know and agree. But there was also discussion how to define "significance" of the Subject, if it is already defined and confirmed by one of the heading keepers of British Museum, for example. Divnanoc (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Well. It starts to look ridiculous. There is still no good hint where and when the English artist of XIX century with numerous exhibitions, sufficiently collected by British Museum, presented in the primary, secondary, thirdly...sources supported by leading specialists, lost his "significance" and how to return it. Help, please! Divnanoc (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst the draft requires some editing for neutral/dry tone I would be happy to accept this if it was re-submitted. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just going to say the same. In fact, I don't think anyone has said otherwise, and a couple of reviewers have suggested this could be notable. So not sure what is "looking ridiculous" here? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Mongoltuurgataninfo

[edit]

I want to make this article for future searches and ensure it can be updated with new information over time. Please help me with advise. Mongoltuurgataninfo (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, meaning it's the end of the road for this draft. Social media and YouTube are not acceptable sources. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources like news reports say about people that meet our criteria. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 3 December 2024 review of submission by Researchclari

[edit]

Hi, I wanted to ask for help understanding which sources in this draft are not considered reliable. Thank you! Researchclari (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that you personally created and personally own the copyright to the logo of the organization. Is that the case? 331dot (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the References list (without looking into the sources themselves) suggests to me that many of them are not independent of the association. That is a criterion which nearly as important as reliability. (Specifically, all sources must be reliable, and most of them - and in particular, all of those on which the claim of notability is to rest - must be independent.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

[edit]

01:32, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Wikiwi019

[edit]

Hello,

I'm getting messages that my sources are not reliable, however they are real sources. I would like my page to be published shortly.

Would it be possible to help me?

Thanks a lot!

Best,

Wikiwi019 Wikiwi019 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered reading the wall of comments on your draft? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Wikiwi019. What you're missing 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. . Please read WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:27, 4 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:205C:7B0E:3CDF:E8FF:FEBD:D7B6

[edit]

Which notable sites are eligible 2409:40F4:205C:7B0E:3CDF:E8FF:FEBD:D7B6 (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That question is a bit academic, since this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. But for future reference, in most cases we need to see sources that meet the WP:GNG standard. That calls for, among other things, reliable sources, and you will find advice on what constitutes one at WP:RS and WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 4 December 2024 review of submission by RJClark1447

[edit]

I have read and accept all the comments regarding my submission. However, on the basis of consistency: why is there so much (out of date, inaccurate) information about the Duckworth Lewis System and who wrote it? RJClark1447 (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RJClark1447: you can see who contributed what to Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method by viewing the article's edit history. You can also see the shares of contribution here.
If the article contains out of date or inaccurate information, this is simply because it hasn't been updated or corrected. (Or possibly, some editors' views of what is correct and accurate differ from yours.) You are more than welcome to edit the article to improve it, supported by reliable sources of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Flight709

[edit]

This page was just declined. The reviewer said "The citations are not independent sources to claim notability." I would like a second opinion on this, because this reviewer was recently granted reviewing rights based on the message on his talk page, so he might be afraid to approve pages and trying not to make mistakes. I totally understand, he is trying to be super cautious.

However, this musician has several in-depth articles that are independent. The TJPL News article is a 2 page spread. The York Calling article is quite in-depth too etc. Testing Melodies article is also in-depth and independent. One of his bands has a book coverage here.

The artist also has several album reviews, such as in Rockera Magazine, Pitch Perfect,Sound Good webzine, and in Metal Temple. 

Flight709 (talk) 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flight709: I'd say if you're going for notability per WP:GNG, then the sources are at best borderline, being a mix of blogs etc., passing (or no) mentions, and reviews of his music (as opposed to coverage of him as a person). If, on the other hand, you want to claim notability per the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline, then you should decide which of the criteria he meets, and provide clear evidence to support that.
This may also partly hinge on what these 'Mystral Tide' and 'Minorarc' entities are. If they are his 'alter egos' or similar, then they may contribute to his notability. Whereas if they are some sort of ensembles or distinct projects, ie. distinct from his person, then they probably won't.
That's my take on it. Others may have different ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flight709
I am a she/her in case of next time and you are right, I am fairly new to AFC however I am certain your article does not pass notability for artist, if we are to be considering their work, then maybe those references you added will be OK to certify them. However those links were brief mention with focus on their work.
I also seek second opinion when it comes to reviewing articles but yours is not a complicated one for me. it's fine you brought this here anyway, let's hear what other reviewers have to say. Tesleemah (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:22, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Gabriella Grande

[edit]

Hello. Is there a way I can submit the draft in a different category such as YouTuber or Entertainer? Because it keeps getting declined as an article about a musician cause DeMartino isn't notable enough as a solo musician, but I've listed so many reliable sources about her that talks about other things than music. Gabriella Grande (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriella Grande: this is actually categorised as biography > media. In any case, that's only for the purposes of administering the AfC process, so that drafts can be searched/browsed by topic area. This has no bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, the reviewers will consider all possible aspects of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing, But I feel like they don't read the entire draft or actually check the sources because it keeps getting declined for the same reason. Gabriella Grande (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriella Grande: are you saying the reviewers are doing their job incorrectly?
A draft may be declined for any valid reason, which may or may not be the same reason as on previous occasions. If the previous decline reason hasn't been sufficiently addressed, there is a good chance it will be declined on that basis again.
There is no special notability guideline for YouTubers, although I suppose something like WP:CREATIVE could apply. The one for 'entertainers' is at WP:ENTERTAINER. Feel free to point out which aspect of these the subject satisfies, and what evidence supports this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing when did I even say they're doing their job incorrectly? lol. All I'm saying is that they only seem to review her as a musician and not as a public figure in general. Gabriella Grande (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I feel like they don't read the entire draft or actually check the sources"; that would mean they aren't doing their job correctly.
There is not a "public figure" notability criteria. Reviewers look at drafts seeing of any notability criteria will fit, there are not separate categories of review. If a specific one(like musicians) doesn't seem to apply, then the broader notable person one will apply, and reviewers will see this. If you feel that the notable person definition applies and reviewers are not properly applying it, you need to tell us how. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Animexamera

[edit]

It is unclear for me why the submission has been declined, and the editor that declined it got banned so I can't ask them. What do i do? 

Animexamera (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Animexamera uh... the reviewer wasn't actually a proper reviewer, and they've been blocked for sockpuppetry. I've reverted their edits. The draft is now pending review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ! Animexamera (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:04, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Brazbiog

[edit]


I have a quick question about "Facebook as a source." When editing the above page, one of the awards the researcher got was by Meta/Facebook. I put the link confirming the award (https://research.facebook.com/fellows/ribeiro-manoel-horta/), and got flagged as "using Facebook as a source." That should be fine, right? This is not Facebook the social network, but rather, Meta, the entity behind Facebook.

Brazbiog (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you were "flagged"(do you mean by an edit filter?) It would be better to use an independent reliable source and not a primary source like Meta itself. Anyone can give out any award or recognition that they want- it means little unless others take note of it and write about it.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). If the only claim to notability is that they got awards, this person would not be notable. If you are asserting that they are a notable professor, you would need to show that they meet at least one aspect of WP:NACADEMIC. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think it was an edit filter, but not sure what is the implication of that. I would not say that this award or awards are the reason why this person passes the notability criteria. I have found other sources indicating this is a sought-after award (e.g., https://grad.uchicago.edu/fellowship/meta-research-phd-fellowship/). I have also found a secondary source (https://www.epfl.ch/schools/ic/about/awards/phd/)! Thank you for clarifying! Brazbiog (talk) 12:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 4 December 2024 review of submission by EteriDvalishvili

[edit]

Hi,

I believe my article includes sufficient primary and secondary sources, yet it has been denied twice. Could I kindly ask for more detailed feedback on why it continues to be rejected? I’ve noticed other pages with fewer sources being approved, so I’m trying to better understand what might be missing or where improvements are needed.

Thank you for your time and guidance! EteriDvalishvili (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @EteriDvalishvili. My Georgian is not much, but it seems to me that every one of the items in the Reference list is by Mchedishvili: that means that they are all not only primary but non-independent. 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. Please read WP:42
As for "other pages with fewer sources being approved": First, it is not the number but the quality of sources that matter. An article with three substantial, reliable, and independent sources is of far more value and quality than an article with fifty weak sources. Secondly, I am guessing that these articles you are referring to are ones that have been in Wikipedia for some time, and were created before we were as careful as we are now about sourcing; so they were probably never "approved". If you tell us which ones they are, we can look, and may well find that they do not establish the subject's notability, and should be deleted. See Other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EteriDvalishvili: this draft cites a single source, the National Parliamentary Library of Georgia. Of the multiple citations to that source, one is a biographical profile, the others are catalogue entries. I don't see how this would establish notability via any of the relevant guidelines, namely WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 4 December 2024 review of submission by AlexMalexxx

[edit]

Hello. Im not sure what im doing wrong, Im writing an Article about my Software i made myself, It is also Open-Source and can be found at GitHub. I often put references to my Github README page. Why my Article is being declined ? AlexMalexxx (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexMalexxx: I declined this draft for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely that there is no evidence the subject is notable, and the information is insufficiently referenced. Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia, and usually requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent.
You also have a clear conflict of interest (COI), which must be properly disclosed. I will post instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexMalexxxYour Github page is a primary source and not ok to proof the notability of your article. To do that, you need reliable independent sources like newspapers, magazines etc independent of the article. Tesleemah (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:30, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Nandichumki

[edit]

Please help me for resolve this isuue . I want to learn working at wikipedia for. Nandichumki (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'be been given direction on the draft by the reviewers. Do you need clarification about it? 331dot (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nandichumki. I'm afraid that you are having a typical experience for a new editor who immediately tries the challenging task of creating a new article. That is not the only way, nor necessarily the best way, of contributing to Wikipedia; and it is certainly not the best way to learn how to edit. Would you take up a new sport, and immediately enter a major competition? Not only would you probably not get very far, but you would not even understand what the experts were telling you about your game.
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) 16:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 4 December 2024 review of submission by Litigator9

[edit]

Can somebody explain why all other editions of Harper's Bazaar are considered notable enough for lists to exist but Vietnam specifically is not? Is it that other editions are generally American and European and Asian editions aren't notable enough in the western world? Litigator9 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources that establish that the Vietnam edition of this publication is notable on its own as a distinct topic, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1261167752"