(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


August 16

[edit]

05:50, 16 August 2024 review of submission by 2806:2A0:B18:880C:94D3:1B45:E11E:5143

[edit]

Could you please let us know where we became non-compliant with the article so that we can make the necessary amendments? 2806:2A0:B18:880C:94D3:1B45:E11E:5143 (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?
If you mean the original author of this draft, then the answer to your question is that blocked users are not allowed to edit from any account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why was my article rejected???

[edit]

I worked hard on my piece of writing. Let me share my take on the rats of NYC with the world!! >-< SKIBIDINOMETAMER (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhuh. Carry on like that, and you will be blocked soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Hey, I must be clairvoyant! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Find somewhere else to post funny junk. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:28, 16 August 2024 review of submission by Lnplohar 388

[edit]

Please my article are true please help Lnplohar 388 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lnplohar 388 The truthfulness of the information is not at issue. It is completely unsourced and you have not demonstrated notability. This is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first spend much time editing existing articles to gain experience and knowledge as to how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Please also consider using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is also within the scope of a contentious topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:22, 16 August 2024 review of submission by TornadoSpeciakost

[edit]

Why is this getting deleted? TornadoSpeciakost (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoSpeciakost Because it's a mixture of a copyright violation and made up stuff. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 16 August 2024 review of submission by A.reymn

[edit]

Bonjour, Ma récente soumission n’a pas été acceptée. Mais je continue à modifier, selon vos instructions, mon article en complétant les références (citations) dans le Sandbox où se trouve mon article. Je souhaite vous soumettre à nouveau cet article une fois les modifications terminées. Ma question est de savoir si je peux vous soumettre l’article directement depuis le Sanbox ? Merci beaucoup de votre réponse. A.reymn (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceci est le Wikipédia anglais. Veuillez communiquer en anglais. (this is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English) 331dot (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CFA has added a submission button, but in my opinion, this will not be accepted, as it reads like an essay. A Wikipedia article summarises what reliable sources say on a subject, nothing more. It should never present any argument or conclusion, except to summarise an argument or conclusion wholly contained within one of the sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your opinion. I will try to modify and turn it into a compilation of different sources instead of essay. A.reymn (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A.reymn: I added the submission button to your sandbox. C F A 💬 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:46, 16 August 2024 review of submission by OliveRacc

[edit]

I need help from qualified Wikipedians who know about Lifesteal and are dedicated to make the articles top quality. OliveRacc (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveRacc The draft has been rejected. This means that, as written, it is not a top quality draft. Wikipedia has been improved by not accepting it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 17

[edit]

Sourcing questions

[edit]

EDIT: Uh, nevermind I guess I passed review so I guess my sources were ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm working on this draft, but it's the first article I've created that's medicine related. I tried to use reliable sources (NHS, stuff from PubMed, NIH, etc.), but there are some cases where I used non medical sources. In the history section, I used a law journal, in the advocacy section I linked to some advocacy groups to prove that advocacy supported those positions, and in the nomenclature section I provided some arguments on why parents of intersex people may prefer DSD using a paper writing by a professor with an interest in intersex topics. Is that ok? Or do all sources have to be medical even for more historical and social info?


Additionally, I was wondering if more local government health departments would be acceptable sources, or does it have to be strictly national sources like the NHS and CDC. For example, I used a document from the State of Victoria Department of Health and Human Services. Is that ok?

Ultimately I'd just really appreciate if someone could take a quick look through my sources since I want to make sure it's up to par. Thanks.

Urchincrawler (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Urchincrawler Accepted by a reviewer. Well done. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:03, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Injusticegod

[edit]

Hi iknow an artist and i need someone from help desk to publish hm Injusticegod (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Injusticegod I know several people, none of whom qualify for an article. If you think your acquaintance does please read HELP:YFA. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:58, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Jackhh2004

[edit]

This article is very worth publishing, in my opinion, and I want help making it good enough to get published. Jackhh2004 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackhh2004 no Declined This is a candidate, and fails WP:NPOL 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:18, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Mohasafa00

[edit]

I have updated the draft with more esteemed publications surrounding the title. I'm kindly asking for assistance from other editors for this title. Mohasafa00 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohasafa00 You have submitted it for review. Please wait patiently for that review. In the meantime you should continue to improve the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:25, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Ribinshad

[edit]

hi, can you help me with this, I want to write in wikipidia, this is a new phone brand am currently using when I search on wiki I didn't find about it that why I added this brand, is the details I given wrong or the writing style of mine is wrong , what is the issue, can you help me with this Ribinshad (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribinshad: the draft is very promotional and offers no evidence that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms.
And once a draft has been rejected (as opposed to merely declined) you shouldn't resubmit it anymore. You may discuss the rejection with the reviewer who rejected it, but looks like you haven't done that.
Do you have a relationship of some kind with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:23, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Apnswami

[edit]

Can you please advise what other things do you expect for acceptance. All the information provided has a sufficient external link and I am surprised that this is rejected. Apnswami (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing more you can do, rejection means that resubmission is not possible at this time. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Apnswami: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources that I can assess are any good, which is why the draft has been rejected for failure to address reviewers' concerns and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Kshitij Vats 001

[edit]

Taking a lot of time Kshitij Vats 001 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kshitij Vats 001: you submitted this a week ago. Don't know if you noticed, but it says on top of the draft "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,594 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Shaansaren

[edit]

Would like to know what this message from the article reviewer means.....not clear how they pass WP:NACTOR?.

Is it regarding the hyperlinks i used or citations i gave?? Shaansaren (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shaansaren! I think your main problem is that your draft is only a couple of sentences long, and tells us almost nothing about your subject. Your sources are also both interviews, which we don't accept as evidence of notability. Have you read through Your First Article? If not, I suggest you start there. If you've read that, then move on to WP:NACTOR (which will tell you what we're looking for to establish an actor is notable) and WP:42, our 'golden rule' for sources (which will tell you what you need in a source). Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 18

[edit]

04:36, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 122.52.65.67

[edit]

Hello HurricaneEdgar submit the draft can review the draft? 122.52.65.67 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 18 August 2024 review of submission by SDsharkie

[edit]

Sorry, my article on a musician in the metal band Dark Angel got declined by an editor who says its not worthy of wikipedia but this musician is already listed in wikipedia through the band and her prior band and most of the article is valid, the editor just cited issues with a few of the sources, not the majority. So, why decline the whole article and how do you fix this? I also do not know how to link to the existing wikipedia page articles that exist, but since the musician is already listed in wikipedia in a couple spots and clearly as worthy as the other musicians in the band, not sure how it can be deemed not worthy of wikipedia?? 

SDsharkie (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Draft:Laura Christine StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SDsharkie! I've just gone through your draft and named some references so your ref list isn't encumbered by multiples of the same thing - giant ref lists, especially with duplicated sources, make life harder for reviewers and thus your draft takes longer to be reviewed. More info in WP:REFNAME if you add any more sources!
The thing with biographies of living people is they have incredibly strict requirements - see WP:BLP for more information. Among other things, this means that every single statement must be sourced. You can only use interviews for basic things like her name, her birthdate, that kind of stuff. To show she's notable, you're looking for sources that fit Wikipedia's 'golden rule', WP:42. In short, you need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). The reviewer has said Encyclopedia Metallum is not reliable because it's user-generated, YouTube is also not reliable (no oversight, not a reputable publisher), and interviews are all primary sources. This is excellent advice for you and also, unfortunately, means most of your current sources can't be used. I suggest having a go at replacing all the sources that have been flagged and trying again. Your other option is to remove any information that doesn't have an acceptable source, but I think you'd be better off replacing the sources since without them most of the draft would have to be deleted.
Sorry I don't have better news for you. Please feel free to ask any further questions and someone - maybe me, maybe another of our lovely AfC helpdesk volunteers - will be back to answer soon. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this detailed response. I did edit and add new sources, and remove ones that were not up to snuff, and removed just a little bit of the article to make it fully credible and cited properly. I do hope this gets accepted, as it is my first article and I worked hard to try to make a good one! SDsharkie (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome @SDsharkie! If your article isn't accepted this time around, please feel free to come to my talk page and I'll do a more thorough source check for you. Good luck and happy editing to you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65

[edit]

local public like this Company, more then 5000 farmer helping 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 year helping local farmer 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence whatsoever that this company is notable, not in this attempt, and not in any of the previous ones. If you keep spamming, this title will be protected.
Also, please note that once your user account has been blocked, you are not allowed to register new accounts, nor to continue editing from an IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I will delete your spam post you've just added to a new thread below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:58, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 24.101.104.246

[edit]

Well ... my article was turned down for lack of a reference. But I made no statement in the article that was not "common" knowledge. Everyone on the planet who has any interest at all in the history of the number Pi is aware of the Liebniz series. And that is why I did not give a reference to it. There are TONS of other articles in Wikipedia that I could refer to. If I choose one of those articles already accepted by Wikipedia, will my article then be accepted. Was there any reason (other than lack of a reference) that my article was rejected? If that was the only reason then I will go back and put in a reference. I obviously cannot give proof that a teacher 100 years ago presented this to his second grade class -- so I can just eliminate that fact from the article and let the numbers speak for themselves. This is an important contribution to the body of human knowledge because most articles regarding the Liebniz series do not mention the power of averaging that this article illustrates. 24.101.104.246 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a viable encyclopaedia article draft, this is more like a personal essay or exposition, and completely unreferenced at that. With all due respect, we are not interested in your reflections on some mathematical problem, we want to see what reliable and independent published sources have said about a subject, appropriately summarised and referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Perfectcheck373

[edit]

My article had actual information and reliable sources, unfortunately it declined for no apparent reason, can someone help me tweak the article, so I can submit it again. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Perfectcheck373: There is no evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Her LinkedIn is neither reliable nor independent. This is an interview, a primary source, and does not count towards notability. This is another interview. C F A 💬 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has very likely been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user who has attempted to create this article in the past [1]. User reported to SPI [2] Barry Wom (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that account tried to create the article, but was blocked indefinitely. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked 331dot (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 103.138.11.0

[edit]

WISPAP has been instrumental in representing the interests of wireless and internet service providers across the country, advocating for fair policies, and fostering innovation and competition in the industry. Given the relevance and impact of our association on the telecom sector, I am surprised that an article about WISPAP has not yet been included in Wikipedia.Could you kindly provide insights into why WISPAP is not featured on Wikipedia? If there are specific criteria that need to be met for our association to be considered for inclusion, I would appreciate any guidance or recommendations on how we can fulfill those requirements.Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response 103.138.11.0 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced, and summarizes routine activities.
You must disclose your relationship with this organization, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 136.55.28.55

[edit]

The reviewer said the references where unreliable sources. MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, and other sources used are very credible sources.

I think this reviewer has a personal bias against Patrick Bet-David.

Considering I have in the span of two days edited live wikipedia pages that have no sources at all. 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. Claims of bias need hard evidence.
Google Books is not a source itself, you should be citing the book/publication directly. Interviews do not establish notability.
If you're aware of articles with no sources, you are free to point them out so action can be taken. That cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, see WP:OSE. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is just letting people know the book was published and has an isbn number. What you said is not even applicable to what is being discussed.
And how is Google Books not a reliable source? It is filled with books... All types of books
If that is the metrics. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
"A wiseman speaks because they have something to say. A fool speaks, because they want to say something."
~Plato 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need mere documentation that a book exists. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We know this. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I went to the reviewer's creation page. This reviewer literally has pages published with the same type of sources I used in my article. News Media and Newspapers. How are my sources not credible, when this reviewer uses the exact same type of sources to publish their articles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Bogensee

Look at the sources in his article. They are all media outlets and newspapers. Either this guy is biased or very unfamiliar with credible United States based media sources

By the metrics used by this reviewer, his own article should be rejected.

Make it make sense 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, IP, "this guy" here.
"Same type of sources" means nothing. You can cite the most reliable source in the world, but it may not support what you say in your draft, and/or it may not contribute towards notability. And either way, citing that source may still leave a lot of the other content in your draft unsupported.
If you have a problem with the Villa Bogensee article, by all means start AfD or other deletion proceedings, that's your prerogative.
Oh, and BTW, please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. We do not go entirely by the outlet to determine how useful a source is; we have to read the source as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have said about the subject, plus possibly a small amount of uncontroversial factual data from reliable published sources connected with the subject. Nothing else. ColinFine (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:20, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Saksham Singh Yogi

[edit]

Why is this article written on Swami Avimuktesdhwaranand Saraswati (The Current Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth) who is the topmost saint in Hindu religion and is the most famous and holds the supreme dignitory amongst saint of Sanatan dharma, Article is getting declined by Wikipedia team again and again kindly look into it and help me to make this article public in interest of hindus and indians Saksham Singh Yogi (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saksham Singh Yogi: We have zero tolerance for proselytising and hagiographies. And that includes what you wrote in this section. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Injusticegod

[edit]

i want someone to help me create Marko Meko article please Injusticegod (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Injusticegod I do not believe he qualifies for an article. There are no sources that show any notability. It may be too soon in his career 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well how can we make him notable?
i see there's also many people on wiki they are not notable! Injusticegod (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Injusticegod You cannot make him notable. If you cannot find references which prove him to be notable then it is time to give up. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Injusticegod, we cannot make anyone notable - the rest of the world does, and it takes time. Maybe Meko will produce a world-famous track, or will DJ some major events and become famous for that. What needs to happen is for independent people - people who write news articles, or books, or who make documentaries - to notice him and write about him. If enough people do that, he becomes notable by Wikipedia standards, and then you can write an article about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
got it, thank you it's time to give up Injusticegod (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to ask for co-editors; please see the advice left by reviewers. Do you have more specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 19

[edit]

03:20, 19 August 2024 review of submission by FROZENMAGIC

[edit]

I need to know why its rejecting and what should i do to avoid that? FROZENMAGIC (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FROZENMAGIC: the draft (such as it is) remains completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability whatsoever; and this, after three submissions in quick succession. One can only conclude, therefore, that either the subject is inherently non-notable, or you have no interest in improving the draft to demonstrate notability, and either way it is pointless to continue the review process when we have over 2,500 other drafts to review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 19 August 2024 review of submission by MLachsteiner

[edit]

Hey there,

I’m a new and infrequent contributor, and I’m feeling a bit discouraged. My draft was quickly rejected, and the feedback I received was quite vague. After researching the issues, I made all the necessary corrections and politely asked the reviewers to take another look. Unfortunately, I haven’t received any further response, and my follow-up questions seem to have been archived even.

Could you please advise on what steps I should take next?

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Michael 

MLachsteiner (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MLachsteiner: there isn't any next step required, now that you've resubmitted the draft; it will be reviewed again when a reviewer happens to pick it out of the pool. (A technical detail: your draft has been declined, not 'rejected'. Decline means you're welcome to resubmit it after addressing the decline reason(s). Rejection means resubmission is not possible.)
I can tell you already now, based on only a quick glance, that the draft will almost certainly be declined again, for insufficient referencing (if nothing else). Articles on living people have strict referencing requirements, and your draft contains far too much unreferenced information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much. the german version of this article has been online for years, I didn't expect so many roadblocks. thanks for your quick and clear reaction anyway. could I trouble you for some advice regarding referencing? MLachsteiner (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MLachsteiner: pretty much every material statement you make has to be supported by an inline citation; ditto, any private personal and family details. Which source gives this person's WP:DOB, or the fact that he is married with two children? Where do the discography, filmography, and awards and nominations come from? Etc.
Each language version of Wikipedia is a completely separate project with their own rules and requirements; what is accepted into one version may not be acceptable into another. AFAIK the English-language version has the strictest requirements in what comes to referencing and notability, therefore what you're experiencing is not uncommon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the feedback MLachsteiner (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Sheringsaraeorge

[edit]

i tried to publish a well-known person who is an educationalist in India and the EU but unfortunately, it was rejected recently.

Hopefully looking your advice Regards Sherin Sheringsaraeorge (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that the draft will not be considered further- that there is nothing more you can do. You essentially posted his resume, not a summary of what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about him and what makes him a notable person as sources see it. We don't want just a list of his accomplishments, but significant coverage by sources that go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about him. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Matt46665

[edit]

Declined? New theories are not Wikipedia material? Matt46665 (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt46665: exactly so. Wikipedia is never the first, or even among the first, to report on anything. We only summarise what other sources have previously published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matt46665 No, Wikipedia does not host original research or new theories. If independent reliable sources like the news or academic publications write about your theories, maybe then. To put it another way, Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:35, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 204.111.113.8

[edit]

Can you tell us exactly why this keeps getting declined? What other references could you be looking for? This is an actual journal. 204.111.113.8 (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to study the WP:NJOURNALS notability guideline, and figure out whether and how this journal qualifies; then produce evidence thereof. (Hint: a couple of those indices look like they probably satisfy NJOURNALS C1.b, but the source cited against that claim could be improved – much better to cite the actual indices themselves.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to log in whilst editing and please respond on your talk page to the impression that you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic. Who is "us"? User accounts are strictly single person use. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 173.196.137.238

[edit]

While we understand the requirements, we feel the draft has met the criteria as it includes reliable sources and mentions what his work has done for the industry.

It would be great if we could get better insight into how to improve the draft and get it approved as soon as possible. 173.196.137.238 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting, and only a single person should have exclusive access to your account. Are you on some sort of deadline? Wikipedia has no deadlines.
Please see the messages left by reviewers. It seems likely it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about him. We need more than a discussion of his activities. As odd as it may sound, you have too many sources. Concentrate on summarizing your three or four best sources. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 19 August 2024 review of submission by 74.56.143.227

[edit]

I would like to know what is needed for this page to be published 74.56.143.227 (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the messages left by reviewers, as well as the pages linked to in those messages. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Theatrebuff1989

[edit]

Hi - I created a new bio page for the theatre producer Dafydd Rogers but it was rejected because it was too similar the page for David Pugh (Theatre Producer). This is because the two were partners and originally had a shared page. Someone edited the shared page to make it only a page for David Pugh and removed all mention of Rogers (in bad faith I think). I added back Rogers' name to their shared productions and made a separate page for Rogers. The advice upon submitting this was to re-merge the pages. Does this mean that the David Pugh page should not be a self standing page either? In my opinion that page had been subject to some kind of personal/political editing to remove Rogers from the record. It would be good to get some expert advice on whether the two pages should be remerged or remain as two independent bios. If Pugh is work his own page than surely so is Rogers as most of their careers were shared. I do not think that the pages should be merged because both men are now continuing to work independently in significant areas of UK Theatre production and administration. Thanks! Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether they work independently, but whether there is reliable independent published material for each of them separately.
With two people who work together, there are three potential subjects: person A, person B, and the partnership. It is perfectly possible for one or two of those three subjects to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability but not the other(s): it depends almost entirelyt on what has been published about them.
(I haven't looked at these particular examples: this is a general statement). ColinFine (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this makes sense and has been the standard I've been following. I wonder if you could look at the specific entries please of David Pugh (which was edited by someone else from a shared page of David Pugh and Dafydd Rogers) and the draft for Dafydd Rogers? In this specific example Person A (Pugh) and Person B's (Rogers) notability was for more than 20 years through a partnership that has now ended (and all the sources are equal for both of them). since the dissolution of the partnership in 2019 both are continuing to work independently. This suggests to me that there should be two separate pages going forward but that each page might have some overlapping content from the partnership phase (which was the reason that Dafydd Rogers entry was declined). It would be good if you were able to let me know what you think if you had time? Thanks in advance. Theatrebuff1989 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Liyabelll

[edit]

Hey, i've added more refrences to the article, Cobra baSalon was added to Barak Obama's playlist so it's very important to approve Dima XR article for his wider exposure and it's my first article so i need assistance Liyabelll (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liyabelll Wikipedia has zero interest in this musician's exposure. Being on Barack Obama's playlist is not one of the listed notability criteria. The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Br advised that what is acceptable on the Hebrew Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:34, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Grant Drewyor

[edit]

After the latest admin feedback, multiple links that could be considered biased or non-independent were removed, and page content was once again updated for this page draft. Before resubmitting this page, I was hoping that an admin could assist me with determining whether or not the page is close to being reasonably approved for submission, or if further changes will need to be made.

More specifically, I was hoping for feedback on which specific citations do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Since the last denied submission, citations have been changed again, so I am hoping that these newly updated citations do meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

I truly appreciate your help, and my only goal is to get this page to a point where it can be accurate and helpful for the users of Wikipedia, so I will be grateful for any feedback you have that could steer me in the right direction for further re submission. Grant Drewyor (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do pre-review reviews; you should submit it in order to get feedback. Any editor may help you with this, not just admins. Admins have no more authority than any other editor, just extra tools. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grant Drewyor, the most important thing is that all your sources need to pass WP:42, the 'golden rule'. This says that you must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). The third criteria simply says that nothing related to the topic can be used to establish notability - so nothing from their website, nothing an employee's written, no interviews, etc. Your subject is a company, so you're trying to show - via your sources - that the company meets WP:NORG, the guidelines for organisation notability.
The first thing a reviewer will do on opening a cited link is ctrl+F (for "find") the subject of your draft. If any of your sources don't mention RightBio Metrics, they're no good to you. It looks to me as though some do mention a product of the company, but that's not the same thing - those sources might be suitable for an article on the product, though. My suggestion to you would be to go through each source and find out if any discuss the company, rather than their products or the field in general. Remove any that don't comply, and then go find ones that do.
I hope that helps you, and wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:46, 19 August 2024 review of submission by Guy Zapoleon

[edit]

This theory has appeared in the New York Times and is a well respected theory adopted by both the music and radio industry why is it not acceptable?

How can Wikipedia help me make this article acceptable?

Thank you,

Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Zapoleon: We do not publish original research. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske,
If this was a new theory(research) that was being published I could understand, but this is a widely accepted theory thats been published inside and outside my industry 32 years (music and radio). Wikipedia has other pieces discussing radio(and music) that contain theory that its published? So I'm trying to understand why its been declined please see that it was written about
in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/21/arts/pop-view-birth-and-rebirth-on-the-airwaves.html
and many other sources
https://www.google.com/search?q=zapoleon+music+cycle&sca_esv=ad3cebe3ffb4734a&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIKVgOkXtsdehPCMcm1lAJ9fLMqhzA%3A1724111058699&ei=0tjDZsifKoea0PEPyIq8yQM&ved=0ahUKEwjI0NOZnoKIAxUHDTQIHUgFLzkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=zapoleon+music+cycle&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiFHphcG9sZW9uIG11c2ljIGN5Y2xlMgoQIxiABBgnGIoFMgQQIxgnMgQQIxgnMgYQABgFGB4yCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogRI5hxQtBpYtBpwAXgAkAEAmAGrAaABwAKqAQMwLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgKgAtkBwgIOEAAYgAQYsAMYhgMYigXCAgsQABiABBiwAxiiBJgDAIgGAZAGBJIHAzEuMaAH9w0&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Guy Zapoleon (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: it's no good saying it has been "widely accepted" and "published inside and outside [your] industry"; we need to see evidence of this. If it has been discussed in multiple reliable and independent sources, you need to cite those sources in the draft. There is now one link to a NYT article, plus another couple of links mentioned in the draft, but they're not properly cited, and it's not clear whether they actually support anything in the draft.
For future reference, Wikipedia articles should be composed by summarising what reliable and independent sources have published about a subject, citing those sources against the information they have provided. This makes the information verifiable, and provides evidence that the subject is notable, which are both core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia features subjects like the 20 year fashion cycle where different fashions reappear. My articles state the facts of the repetition of music in the same way, the individual articles from year that the article was updated, show this evidence of how over a 9-10 year period(except in 90s) the core genres of pop music(Rock, Pop, R&B) grow more pop flavored(Rebirth), then harden(Extremes) then soften(Doldrums. This effects the Arbitron/Nielson ratings and mass popularity of the music discovery gatekeeper, which was radio for 60 years. This occurs most dramatically during 3rd phase which is the Doldrums. Here are some of the links including a few international ones in Australia(themusicnetwork) as well as in Germany (my-radio.biz)
https://www.allaccess.com/consultant-tips/archive/34349/music-cycle-updated-part-1
https://www.insideradio.com/free/guy-zapoleon-2023-marked-fourth-year-of-worst-music-doldrums-for-top-40-radio/article_6b1a4eb4-9e48-11ee-827f-9f9c3f6c47db.html
https://colemaninsights.com/tag/guy-zapoleon
https://themusicnetwork.com/whats-happening-to-chr-unpacking-the-music-cycle-theory/
https://www.insideradio.com/free/best-of-the-blogs-coleman-tackles-90s-music-conundrum/article_7e185512-b65c-11e8-abf5-2fc7576c64ab.html
https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Archive-RandR/1990s/1992/RR-1992-10-09.pdf/page 34 and 36
https://www.billboard.com/pro/country-hits-on-pop-radio-morgan-wallen-luke-combs/
https://my-radio.biz/musik-zyklen-akzeptieren/
Please let me know what I need to do to get my theory published in Wikipedia. Or if I need to employ someone from Wikipedia to edit my work so it meets Wikipedia standards Guy Zapoleon (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: I think we're talking at cross purposes. I'm telling you that we only publish articles which summarise what other sources have previously said. You're wanting to publish some new theory (of yours?) here as the first platform. This is not possible, as we do not publish original research or even synthesis, and are never the first channel to publish anything.
I don't know what "employ[ing] someone from Wikipedia" even means, given that we're all volunteers, but just to say that getting someone else to write this on your behalf will face precisely the same obstacle.
The only way around this is if you can get this theory covered in reliable and independent publications, that would give us something that could potentially be summarised into a Wikipedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear DoubleGrazing,
I'm not sure what you mean as the theory has already been published in mainstream media as well as industry media. I just sent you multiple sources the Ten Year Music Cycle is printed in. The Music Cycle theory has been published in books "The Hits Just Keep Coming" by Ben Fong Torres and newspapers- The New York Times Neil Strauss https://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/21/arts/pop-view-birth-and-rebirth-on-the-airwaves.html as well as Industry Periodicals-Radio & Records, Inside Radio, as well as International publications The MusicNetwork(Australia) and My-Radio.biz(Germany). I explain my theory in my original submission to Wikipedia and in my original articles(links to these are listed above) If my explanations above are not valid for Wikipedia I'm not sure what else I can do to get this published in Wikipedia. Any help or recommendations would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Zapoleon: You need to actually cite your sources, sticking to what those published sources explicitly say. The problem isn't a lack of sources, the problem is you aren't citing them and are expecting us (and by extension the readers) to accept what the article says on faith. We do not operate that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for clarifying this, Jéské. I believe I've now corrected my submission to cite my sources for the article. If it's possible I'd like to resubmit Ten Year Music Cycle article and have you review it for errors and hopefully you can help me get it to a place where it qualifying as a Wikipedia article
Guy Guy Zapoleon (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


August 20

[edit]

00:00, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 158.181.83.238

[edit]

How can Wikipedia ignore this important Professor of Labour Law at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland? Can you help solve this problem? 158.181.83.238 (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't submitted the draft for review? When you're ready, click the blue "Submit the draft for review!" button and a reviewer will check it out. C F A 💬 03:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But on a quick look, it doesn't appear to me as if a single one of your cited sources meets the triple criterion of being reliably published, wholly independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see golden rule. Without several sources which do meet these criteria, no draft can establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and be accepted as an article.
I believe the notability criteria for academics are a bit different, but they depend on evidence of the subject's work being accepted and cited, which again your draft does not do.
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) 10:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 20 August 2024 review of submission by TheDutchArchivist

[edit]

Hi, I'm new to the website, most of my activity is fixing or expanding information on pre-existing Dutch movie articles. (I'm from the Netherlands) A few days ago, I created a draft of SpangaS op Survival, a Dutch film based on the TV series that Disney distributed in the Netherlands around 2009. When I submitted it, it was rejected because of the lack of reliable sources, the sources I originally added to the article were from official websites related to the film. I have a question regarding editing articles in general, what sources/websites are considered reliable for articles about film and television? I'm not an expert on it and I need help regarding this field so that I can improve my wiki skills. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDutchArchivist: my guess is that the reason why this was declined for insufficient referencing is that most of the information in the draft is not supported by citations, so it's not clear where the info is coming from. Personally, I would have probably declined this instead for lack of notability, because it doesn't seem to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question, Do mediums like newspapers, magazines or old archived websites from that report on the film count as reliable and add to the citations? even if it's from a different country that isn't the US? I think that could work.TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDutchArchivist: newspapers, magazines, and other secondary sources are pretty much the gold standard (assuming of course they are reliable and independent), so yes. And they don't have to be from any particular country, or in any particular language; non-English sources are perfectly acceptable. Also, they don't have to be online, although if you're citing offline sources please make sure to provide sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification (see WP:OFFLINE for more on this). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you very much! I appreciate your help, I will re-submit the article again once I found enough sources. TheDutchArchivist (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't see emphasised in the replies above, TheDutchArchivist, is that most of the sources (and all those used to establish notability, need to be wholly independent of the subject. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:43, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Satipem

[edit]

I just created an article about the regional news channel. Can somebody please improve the problems and move the article to the original. Satipem (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite how this works, @Satipem - if you want an article on this subject to exist, you need to do the work yourself. This includes finding and citing sources, as well as writing the draft. If the draft is accepted, the reviewer will move it for you, but first you need to establish that this subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Read Your First Article if you haven't already, and then see whether you can improve your draft. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Piwiki504

[edit]

Hello my initial draft for this page was rejected a few months ago for insufficient sources, and I can see that some others have since contributed to it, but it's been rejected again. I can see there are now a lot more sources referenced. What more will be needed for approval? Piwiki504 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwiki504 Note that the draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
This draft does little more than tell about the topic. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Notability has not yet been demonstrated. This does not require more sources, it requires better sources. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Ggzion

[edit]

My draft was declined after the reviewer commented that the sources were not reliable. While yes, I had used the school's own website as sources most of the time, I found that the instances I used them as sources were ones were there was no opportunity for any other references to be used. For example, when I was talking about leadership specific to the school (coordinators for each grade), I cited the official website of the school as there wouldn't be any newspaper/other website reviewing this. Ggzion (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ggzion The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic(a school in this case), showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, such as a notable organization. An article should not merely document existence. In the past, before current guidelines were developed, many articles about schools were created that merely show existence, but guidelines have become tighter since then, and volunteers have not yet removed older articles.
If you have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage, the school would not merit an article, and no amount of editing can change that. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Ggzion (talk) 04:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443

[edit]

i want to create a page or article about my state progress between the period of 2024 to 2029. Please help me 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443 (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your first article.
You need to start by finding several sources that meet all the criteria in golden rule.
Then you summarise what those sources say about the subject.
Your thoughts, knowledge, and conclusions have no place in an article: it should just be a summary of what the independent reliable sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

This is the simplest page I have created from home that includes the latest work with source code and is about the god. It has been created for common people and should be respected. Robstat7 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the reply I have just given to the previous section, #19:51, 20 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:C9:C100:37F0:31BA:7B0D:839F:5443 ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

This is notable topic. Please provide me volunteers to help improve this page. Robstat7 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 20 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

Thank you for your kind guidance. Actually this page doesn't have a COI. Robstat7 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please don't keep starting new sections here: add to the existing section.
2. Your draft has been rejected, for the reasons I gave above. Please stop. ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any further threads for this draft will be reverted off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 21

[edit]

02:40, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Bérangère444

[edit]

Good day everyone, the article I wrote on Okinawan prehistory got rejected because it did not have enough references. There are currently 34 articles and books in the references. I can find more, but could someone tell me how many I will need to be accepted? Bérangère444 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bérangère444, it's not rejected for not having enough references. It's been declined for not being adequately supported by reliable sources - ie, the sources aren't good enough, not that they are too few. But I'm not sure why you were given this decline. It seems fine. I'll have a more detailed look and resubmit+accept it if I don't find anything problematic. -- asilvering (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, thanks for your quick reply! If it's a problem of reliability I'm not sure how I can solve that, most of the people I put in the references are professors in universities or work at archaeological departments here. Shall I provide curriculum for each? Well, there is still the possibility you'll find the article correct after all! Bérangère444 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:03, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Robstat7

[edit]

Dear sir/mam, this page is original and notable in the sense that it works on the real intel 64-bit computer system and both its structure and functioning is completely different from (Unix/Multics) operating system kernel. Please review my draft again carefully. Please. Robstat7 (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the previous responses you've received for this question. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, if you are kind enough, could you please tell me what is "exactly" missing? Robstat7 (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7 If I'm perfectly honest, the answer is "everything". Please have a look at other articles on Wikipedia and read WP:FIRST and follow the links there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could you consider my draft unique and different from other wikipedia articles? It is not about the guidelines but having something completely different on wikipedia. Robstat7 (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robstat7 Why should you or your work be given special treatment that the other 8 billion people on this planet would also like, but not get? 331dot (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is. I doubt how many of you are from the operating system kernel development background who can understand my work. Robstat7 (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for you to write about your work. We want to know what others wholly unaffiliated with a topic say about it, not what those associated with it say. You've given no reason why you should be treated differently then everyone else who wants special treatment. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you want notability, right? Do you what will happen to the whole wikipedia if the outsiders come to know the truth of notability? Robstat7 (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'd certainly have a lot less work to do as AfC reviewers! Don't threaten us with a good time. -- asilvering (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7: well don't keep us in suspense... what is "the truth of notability"? (Just between you, me and the gatepost; we won't tell the outsiders.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is my final warning. Publish the draft in 5 minutes. Robstat7 (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do yourself a favour, don't go there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has not been published yet. Robstat7 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing give me the status update. Robstat7 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no update. We will not be publishing your draft. -- asilvering (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robstat7: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We are not interested in your proselytising, and the parts of the article that are not proselytising are so vague as to be completely and utterly meaningless even to a layperson. You have refused to source or defend your draft beyond making vague threats, non-sequiturs, and ultimatums. I foresee an indefinite block in your future if you carry on like this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:13, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Brianfahmiguntara

[edit]

Hello admin. My name is Brian Fadli from Indonesia. I am writing this letter to request assistance in reviewing and developing the article about Huanyu Entertainment, which is currently in the draft stage.

Huanyu Entertainment is a company with significant influence in the entertainment industry, and I hope this article can provide accurate and comprehensive information to readers. However, I realize that this article still needs a lot of improvement and development to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

I humbly request the help of experienced admins and contributors of Indonesian Wikipedia to assist in developing this article. Your suggestions, feedback, and assistance will be greatly appreciated in ensuring that this article is suitable for publication and can benefit the broader community.

Thank you very much for your attention and support.

Sincerely,

Brian Fadli Brianfahmiguntara (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brianfahmiguntara You have submitted it for review and it is pending. As noted on your draft, this may take some time, please be patient. You will be given feedback if it is not accepted. If you have a more specific question, please ask here.
You speak of the Indonesian Wikipedia- that is a separate project from this one, with its own editors and policies. You will need to go there and be familiar with their requirements for writing a new article. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:21, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Useless D. Mid

[edit]

It is very notable, it was one of the most popular horror video games especially among generation alpha a few months back and I don't understand why you would class it as not notable enough Useless D. Mid (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Useless D. Mid: this draft has been rejected (for the second time), and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Wikimartinaa

[edit]

This is correct information, please see it is important for farming people, it will help them Wikimartinaa (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimartinaa: I suggest you drop this matter. I've already said you're not allowed to edit under any account or IP address when you've been blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:35, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Writer.domain.amm

[edit]

Hey guys,

I'm curious as to why mine was rejected when mine is submitted for review and the other is drafted. I also already looked up my topic to make sure there wasn't another article about it, and when I began the draft, Wiki said that it was the only of it's topic.

Why was my published article rejected for a draft created after mine? Writer.domain.amm (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Writer.domain.amm: I take it you're referring to Draft:Angela Giarratana as the 'other' draft? It hasn't been submitted for review, so arguably yours shouldn't have been declined on that basis. Yours would/could/should be declined for insufficient referencing, though, so in that sense the outcome would be the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
I'm still figuring out how this messaging thing works. I didn't know it was a board, I thought it would go to my reviewer so that the subject commentary was flush. My bad on the confusion.
The article was rejected for another article existing (the aforementioned draft) with the same name.
Have a good one :) Writer.domain.amm (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Rossamccloskey17

[edit]

I am wondering why my article was taken down for copyright without any copyrighted material included in it.

Thanks! Rossamccloskey17 (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossamccloskey17 I fixed your link, you need to include the "Draft:" portion. I can't access the website the content was from, but unless the text was explicitly released under a license allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution, it cannot be on Wikipedia. You shouldn't just be copying the content of your website here anyway- any article about your center must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you work for this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rossamccloskey17: I cannot see the content as it has been deleted, but the reviewer found it to be a copyright violation of the material on the centre's website, and the attending administrator concurred. This is highly unlikely to happen for no reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 21 August 2024 review of submission by SparagusGamer

[edit]

So from what i understand the article is not eligible for a Wikipedia article and has to be scraped? SparagusGamer (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SparagusGamer: not quite so. The draft was declined because it doesn't (yet) show that the subject is notable. You need to provide evidence of notability, either according to the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PRODUCER notability guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any articles about the subject from "reliable sources", does that mean that the article is not eligible for a Wikipedia article? Sparaguss (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SparagusGamer: quite possibly. Essentially, we summarise what independent and reliable sources have previously said about a subject. If there are no such sources available, then they cannot be summarised, and consequently it isn't possible to base a Wikipedia article on them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 21 August 2024 review of submission by SigmundaFreud

[edit]

Hi I keep submitting the page with references as asked but it keeps getting rejected - can anyone please tell me what I need to do to get it over the line? SigmundaFreud (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SigmundaFreud I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have not established that this person meet the definition of a notable creative professional. You have documented their work, but not summarized independent sources that discuss what makes them notable. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SigmundaFreud: primary sources do not establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SigmundaFreud, you have gotten some great advice, but if you don't mind I'd like to add some more.
First: slow down, there's no rush. Take your time to improve the article, finding suitable sources, before you submit it. If you keep submitting sources that aren't suitable, sooner or later a reviewer will decide there just aren't any good sources and will reject the draft. As 331dot said, rejection is the end of the line, so you want to avoid that!
Second: find good sources. With Wikipedia articles, sources are the most important thing. The article summarizes what's in the sources, nothing more. Many new editors write their draft and then look for sources, which is going backwards. Here's your crash course in good source finding!
Good sources, ones you can use to establish notability, must meet WP:42, the 'golden rule': significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). Sources must meet all three criteria, so if a source has significant coverage in a reliable source but it's an interview (not independent), that source doesn't show your subject is notable. Because you're writing about a living person, you also need to follow WP:BLP (biographies of living people). If you haven't read that yet, please do!
Once you've found your sources, make sure you know how to cite them correctly. You've gotten most of the way there, but citations need to have more information than just a URL. Referencing for beginners may be helpful here.
Finally, I'm going to do a quick check of your first five sources, so you can get an idea of how they'll be looked at. Remember, you want to establish your subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards, so as many sources as possible should match WP:42 to make it very clear he's notable.
Source 1, Vanity Fair: this is a single sentence quoting the subject; it does not show notability (not significant coverage, not independent)
Source 2, GQ: there are only photo credits; it does not show notability (as above)
Source 3, Esquire: same as source 2
Source 4, BAFTA: this is a promotional biography; it does not show notability (not significant coverage, not reliable, not independent)
Source 5, WWD: this includes photo credits and a single line about the subject; see source 1.
So none of your first five sources are any good to you. They show Charlie Gray is a photographer, but there are millions of photographers in the world. You need to establish that Charlie Gray is a well-known, notable photographer. Look for articles about his work, or books, or even academic papers - people writing about him who are doing so only because they think he's great (or terrible - you can be notable for being really bad at something!)
I hope that's been helpful for you, and that you have a better idea of what to do from here. If you want another quick source check later on, please feel free to come to my talk page and say hi - and if I've been unclear, ask for clarification and if I don't show up soon someone else definitely will. Good luck on your source hunt, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! SigmundaFreud (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Guidance on Vaibhav Palhade Draft Article

[edit]
Moved from WT:AN

Hello,

I am seeking assistance with a draft article on Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, an Indian filmmaker and author. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and the quality of sources used. The most recent feedback mentioned that the references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and may not sufficiently establish notability. The reviewer suggested that I need more in-depth coverage and asked me to review WP:COI and WP:PAID guidelines.

I have carefully reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:GNG, and have made the necessary adjustments to the draft. Despite these efforts, I’m finding it challenging to meet the notability criteria due to the nature of the sources available.

Could you please provide guidance on how to proceed with this draft? Is there any specific advice you can offer to improve the chances of acceptance, or should I focus on gathering more substantial sources?

I appreciate your time and assistance.

Thank you, Ballal2003 Ballal2003 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:17, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Ballal2003

[edit]


THE MESSAGE WAS ALREADY SHIFTED HERE BY SENIOR EDITOR & MISTAKENLY REPOSTED HERE BY ME.PLEASE HELP ME TO REMOVE THIS REPEATED MESSAGE.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballal2003 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Hello,[reply]

I am seeking assistance with a draft article on Draft:Vaibhav Palhade, an Indian filmmaker and author. The article has been declined multiple times due to concerns about notability and the quality of sources used. The most recent feedback mentioned that the references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and may not sufficiently establish notability. The reviewer suggested that I need more in-depth coverage and asked me to review WP:COI and WP:PAID guidelines.

I have carefully reviewed the relevant policies and guidelines, including WP:COI, WP:PAID, and WP:GNG, and have made the necessary adjustments to the draft. Despite these efforts, I’m finding it challenging to meet the notability criteria due to the nature of the sources available.

Could you please provide guidance on how to proceed with this draft? Is there any specific advice you can offer to improve the chances of acceptance, or should I focus on gathering more substantial sources?

I appreciate your time and assistance.

Thank you, Ballal2003 

Ballal2003 (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered you on the Help desk, @Ballal2003. Please don't post questions in more than one place. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 21 August 2024 review of submission by Dr. Carrotflower

[edit]

The "Submission declined" message tells me that my article doesn't have good enough coverage but I don't understand what more, specifically, I could mention. I would love some feedback on this. Ideally, tell me the information that should be there, that is not. Thank you. Dr. Carrotflower (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Carrotflower: An obituary in the NYT is always a good indicator of notability in my experience, but reviewers will generally expect at least 3 reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage to be in the article in order to accept. I found this in-depth article in the LA Times and this article in photographmag.com, which, combined with the NYT article, may alone be enough for notability. Newspapers.com is down for me right now, but I can see many articles with significant coverage on newspaperarchive.com (e.g. this in the Mesa Tribune), so I have accepted the draft. C F A 💬 23:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 22

[edit]

03:17, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Charcot Cinq

[edit]

I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and I do not understand the grounds on which my draft article has been declined: "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)."

I've read all the guidelines. I believe the subject is notable as she has received significant coverage from independent sources as can be seen from the list of references.

I have made an enormous effort to use as many citations as possible to published, reliable, secondary sources (e.g. the BBC and Guardian) to verify the points in the article. If there are references which could be considered 'passing' it's where the subject is mentioned in a list of similar subjects (e.g. "Yin was named by The Evening Standard Magazine as one of the top tastemakers in the London food scene in June 2017.") which is unavoidable.

I also looked at published articles on similar subjects on Wikipedia to ensure I had a template to mirror when I started creating my article, and I believe the one I've put together exceeds in independent, good quality references compared to some of them.

Please could someone help by explaining in more specific detail the references which are not good enough by Wikipedia's standards?

Thank you. Charcot Cinq (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charcot Cinq: a quick scan through the sources suggests that they're mainly reviews of her book or restaurant, plus a few brief author profiles and similar, rather than significant coverage of herself as a person. So that I don't have to go through all 29 sources, can you tell me the 3-5 that you feel best meet the WP:GNG standard, ie. that are independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of her? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:52, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

[edit]

The Little Z page was declined because YouTube was commonly in the sources. I was looking through some other articles, and a lot of similar people to Little Z have their respective pages filled with YouTube as the sources almost entirely, like Alpharad for example. I think it makes sense, as my claim that he makes videos on YouTube about smash bros where he did a certain thing, can be proved by the video on YouTube he made about smash bros where he did said certain thing. There aren't many articles being written about YouTube videos or obvious reasons, so it's difficult to find other sources for him. If anyone could give me advice, it would be very appreciated, thank you. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 04:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayor Orangutan: you can cite this person's YouTube videos when you're mentioning them, but you can't establish their notability by citing only their YouTube videos. In other words, you can't claim that this person is notable because they make YouTube videos, and as evidence of that, cite some YouTube videos they've made. No person or thing can establish their own notability, otherwise everything would be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's difficult to find sources other than YouTube videos connected with them, that should be taken as a sign that they may not be notable. As for Alpharad's article, there probably needs to be a bit of trimming there, too, but at least there's a good deal of sourcing that is independent and reliable. In any case, you can't rely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there isn't enough interesting articles on him not for a lack of notability, but because there isn't much to say about subjects involving him, as he isn't controversial and is in Australia not America. He has several hundreds of millions of views without creating short-form content, and is considered a sort of celebrity compared when meeting people like Marss so is arguably more notable in that way, even though that's using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. I can go add more independent sourcing on him, because they do exist, I figured the page would be better without those though. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sourcing isn't just an option, it is the option, and is the very basis for how English Wikipedia works. Without independent sourcing, there's no meaningful source for anything to be written on Wikipedia. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

[edit]

Rejected a month ago today, but with a couple dozen sources (and most importantly, an above-average "Reception" section) to show for it. There is primary use of the topic's own material for refs, but as for the rest, I can't quite put a finger on it. Putting this literature draft up for reconsideration/review. (Filing on behalf of page creator StruMus (talk · contribs).) Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case. On one hand, the majority of the citations are to the subject itself, or to Struwig's (who seems to be the author of this draft, also?) PhD thesis, neither of which helps us much. On the other hand, the first few sources listed in the bibliography suggest that this received plenty of serious attention in the 80s, which would seem to make it notable by definition. Due to the style of referencing, and with most sources being offline, this is tricky to rule in or out with any certainty. If I had to make the call, on the basis of "more likely than not to survive an AfD" I would probably release it into the wild and let the community deal with it as it sees fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there @DoubleGrazing and @Slgrandson! Thanks for looking into this. The encyclopedia certainly got serious attention in the 1980s - both in South Africa and abroad, as you can see from the reception section. Most of the referenced sources are articles published in peer-reviewed academic journals. Because they date from the 1980s, some of them are unfortunately not yet digitised (older journals are often not digitised in South Africa due to a lack of funding/resources). In South Africa, the encyclopedia remains the only such large-scale publication on South African music and musicians. As a result, it is still being used by researchers today. Let me know if I need to change the referencing style in any way, but I can certainly vouch for the notability of the encyclopedia. StruMus (talk) 10:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 22 August 2024 review of submission by JonathanCarty410

[edit]

How can I make this submission acceptable? JonathanCarty410 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JonathanCarty410: this draft has been rejected already, you should not resubmit it.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO.
And regardless of that, every subject must be shown to be notable, in order to be accepted into the encyclopaedia. There is no evidence of notability here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Oceanview99

[edit]

I believe this page should be resubmitted, as there is a lot more on the subject person than one event. Besides national coverage of the subject, they are heavily involved in political campaigns and has substantial information released on his background as well. Oceanview99 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanview99: well, you're of course welcome to make a case for it, by appealing directly to the last (rejecting) reviewer. But you need a persuasive, policy-based argument for doing so, not just that you "believe". Although I add that when four different experienced reviewers think the draft doesn't demonstrate notability, there's probably a reason for that.
What is your relationship with this person? All of your edits to date have to do with this subject, and you uploaded a photo of him as your own work, meaning you must have been at close quarters at least on that occasion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Guilderbell

[edit]

Hello,

Immanuel Velikovsky has his own page on wiki. Charles Ginenthal took up the mantle of Velikovsky's ideas regarding science, cosmology and catastrophism. He has published many books regarding these topics and I feel you cannot have a full discussion on wiki and catastrophism in general without mentioning all the great work this man has done for this avenue of science. I know I am knew to editing wikipedia but I would greatly like to see Charles Ginenthal have a page that at least delves into the bibliography of his books and I am hoping that others with expertise on his books will be able to contribute to the page with knowledge of his theories, and scientific studies he did as well as his fierce defense of Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas. Guilderbell (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guilderbell: that shouldn't be a problem. You just need to support the draft with reliable sources (see WP:REFB for advice on referencing), and demonstrate that the subject is notable enough to justify inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 22 August 2024 review of submission by 2600:100C:B30F:8B94:2858:A5A9:A6E6:E65E

[edit]

What can I do, to fix this submission? 2600:100C:B30F:8B94:2858:A5A9:A6E6:E65E (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. The subject isn't notable enough to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. See WP:WHYNOGARAGE.. C F A 💬 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't cite Spotify (streaming website), Apple Music/iTunes (online storefront), or YouTube en generale (unknown provenance). Take those away, and you have zero sources, fatal for any draft and especially so for an article about a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Lvlyqtrn

[edit]

Why was this article rejected even though it was written using an objective point of view and with several existing and reliable sources according to the author Lvlyqtrn (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lvlyqtrn: because there is no evidence of notability, the draft is purely promotional, and you seem to be collaborating with the other account working on this, Qatrin's page, and you probably both have a conflict of interest that you've not disclosed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Lumberingreconnoitre

[edit]

The article was denied for not having reliable sources. I'm not sure I understand.

All sources I used are the original source of the information, except for the medium article. The 2b2t.org sources are reliable as that is the official blog of the 2b2t server.

My guess is maybe the youtube sources are not reliable ? For example I source a YouTube video for the digital drone delivery part under History as its the best source we have as the company has not released their code. Should I remove this section and resubmit ?

Thank you for the opportunity to resubmit. This is my first time making a whole wikipedia article and I want to write articles on lots of the smaller online businesses of MMOs. Lumberingreconnoitre (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, YouTube is not a reliable source(as anyone can put anything on YouTube without editorial review and fact checking) unless the video is from a news outlet on its verified channel. Wikipedia doesn't want to know what this platform says about itself, as that is not an independent source.
Are you associated with this platform? 331dot (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Lumberingreconnoitre. 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) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 22 August 2024 review of submission by Inigo.novales

[edit]

I would like to know how long I have to make changes and resubmit this draft. I am hoping for a long extension, as I am waiting for the McGill Department of Physics to publish a list of MacDonald Professors of Physics and for Web of Science to correct some of RT Sharp's publications, which have been misattributed. Thanks. Inigo.novales (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no limit on how long a draft may remain, except that if it is unedited for six months it may get deleted (and even then, you can ask for it to be restored).
You have submitted it for review - there is no way of telling whether it will get reviewed in minutes or months, as this depends on when one of the volunteer reviewers sees it and decided to pick it up and review it.
Whether or not the draft is accepted depends on whether it is adequately sourced by independent reliable sources: sources from his employer may be used to verify uncontroversial factual information such as dates, but do not contribute in any way to establishing notability. For a living person, every piece of information in the draft should be sourced.
Likewise, the presence or absence, or accuracy of attribution, of his works will not affect whether the draft is accepted (unless the draft misrepresents what is in the cited sources). You can continue to work on the draft while it is waiting for review, and (if it is accepted) once it becomes an article. ColinFine (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:21, 22 August 2024 review of submission by 67.6.204.10

[edit]

- So we can't read information from original album book, and type up the info for use in Wikipedia? - Nor use info from Discogs that is confirmed in the original album book? - I submitted INFO that correlated with original album book release, to help others who might be looking for the info. It took me a few hours. Tried to understand your system, but not worth it.

You can delete this page whenever you choose. No one can access it anyway.

THANKs! 67.6.204.10 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not what we do here, we summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've interpreted your comment as a deletion request; if you want it back to attempt to do as we need, I can restore it. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1241724918"