(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 3

[edit]

02:44, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Brentonlons

[edit]

I don't know what is required. I first used a link to the Boom Boom album's info & artwork on discogs and was told Discogs is NOT a reliable/acceptable reference. Then added references from the book Boogie Man and still was not accepted. Brentonlons (talk) 02:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brentonlons: what is required is that you demonstrate notability, either by citing multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, or by showing (with reliable evidence) how this album satisfies one or more of the seven criteria in the WP:NALBUM guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:47, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Magistracraig

[edit]

I responded to the reviewer in talk about why the Etruscan art and archaeological evidence for the god the unique culture of the Etruscans called "Memnun" is not the same God as the Greeks (and Romans) called Μέμνων/ Memnon in their art. Etruscan art and culture predates that the Romans and is distinct from that of Greek culture. In addition there are plenty wikipedia pages for Etruscan gods - including Memnun's mother (called Eos in Greek, called Aurora in Latin) and called Thesan in Etruscan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesan. Etruscan knowledge is very limited so why would Wikipedia limit knowledge even further when distinct archeological evidence exists? I'm sure just thinking that Memnun is a typo for Memnon which is a bit superficial from a research/information perspective. :) Magistracraig (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magistracraig: you don't really ask a question, as such – was there something you wanted help with?
To my entirely non-expert eye it seems there is at least an overlap between your draft and the Memnon article, so that decline wasn't an unreasonable one, IMO. Is there a reason why salient content from your draft couldn't be merged into the existing article? That article could do with some further work in any case, and this seems like an opportunity to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @DoubleGrazing - I am simply asking for a review of the newly submitted page because yes, there is a misunderstanding based on a knowledge base of ETRUSCAN and not GREEK mythology. No judgement because I am learning too.
At first when I noted Memnun in research I also thought it was a typo but then I learned that the Etruscan culture has it's own extensive history and collection of artifacts. There are plenty of other Etruscan mythology pages, artifacts and valid research which I added an updated. IMHO it seems that someone just quickly made a non expert decision. I tried to provide Wikipedia with a lot of research and support. I'm a credentialed high school teacher (in various states). I understanding the need to back up statements with evidence and I have- not sure why this is such a big deal as there is already an Etruscan page about Thesan (who the Greeks called Eos) but not son who she is regularly depicted in art with. It would be like Wikipedia approving a page about "Miriam" but not "Moses" in Judeo-Christian texts.
The Etruscans were there own people and it's just simply something Wikipedia editors should not flag based on their own historical, art history, linguistic knowledge (which the original reviewer even wrote!) Magistracraig (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing - Just so this page can be approved:
This is what the reviewer understood about the reviewer's own knowledge of an entire culture, collection of artifacts and mythological tradition: "I don't know enough about the mythology to understand, but is this the same myth as Memnon?" The answer is sort-of - like is Coke- Pepsi-Tab? Is Burger King the exact same as McDonalds? -Sort -of... Magistracraig (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magistracraig: okay, well, you have resubmitted the draft, so it will be reviewed again at some point; we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk.
I certainly don't feel qualified to comment on the matter. I can flag it up on the WikiProject Mythology talk page, in case anyone there cares to opine. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Mysteriouslucifer

[edit]

Can I get a help to edit it so I can learn how to keep my articles neutral. It would be benefitting me in the future articles if any of the mentor can guide me through this Mysteriouslucifer (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For a released film, you need to establish that the film meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. That's typically done with reviews from professional reviewers or other coverage beyond routine coverage/announcements(like release dates, casting, announcing the commencement of production, etc.). 331dot (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mysteriouslucifer: this draft was declined (at least in part) for being promotional.

"Mera Baba Nanak is not just a film; it's a heartfelt journey that encapsulates the essence of faith and family ties. Set against the backdrop of Punjab, this Punjabi cinematic gem weaves together a poignant family drama, where the central theme revolves around the enduring power of belief in the teachings of Baba Nanak. Through its narrative, the film explores the intricate dynamics of familial relationships while celebrating the spiritual legacy that resonates deeply with audiences. Film promises to be a captivating ode to faith, love, and the timeless wisdom that guides generations."

I trust it's clear from that choice excerpt why that was?
Your job is to describe the subject, not to 'sell' it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Aurodea108

[edit]

My draft was rejected because I had cited a FInd A Grave entry as the source of the birth and death dates in this biography of a deceased person, Josephine Semmes. (I read the photo of the headstone there, and did not reference any user-edited text.) I am not able to find any obituaries. I also went through the Wikipedia Library link to search Ancestry.com, which did not have any record of Semmes either. If I simply delete the dates and the reference to Find A Grave, can I resubmit? In the meantime I also added information to the draft from an additional secondary source (a journal article). Aurodea108 (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aurodea108: no, your draft was declined (not 'rejected') for lack of notability. The comment about Findagrave was just that; an additional comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have added additional information from the additional secondary source, that should clarify notability. However, before resubmitting, should I also delete the Find A Grave entry and the information sourced from it? Aurodea108 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 3 August 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe

[edit]

Hello! Recently, user Safari Scribe declined my Draft:Mara-Daria Cojocaru. I asked Safari Scribe for advice in order to optimise the article but they didn't get back to me yet. The reason given for declining the draft was the following: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." My problem is that I can't find any peacock words or phrases in the draft that conflict with a neutral point of view. Also, I can't identify passages not encyclopedic. I have already written several articles for the English Wikipedia and never got a similar negative feedback concerning my writing or tone. Therefore I'm quite surprised about this evaluation of my work. Actually, I tend to think that there has been some kind of mistake or mix-up. Anyway, I would be glad if you could help me out and give me some advice. Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Takeru Watanabe: I've read through your draft, and TBH, I can't find anything wrong with the text, either. Normally at this point I would ping the reviewer for comments, but as you've already approached them and haven't heard back, there's probably no point. The draft seems fine to me, so I'll just go ahead and accept it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing! Thank you very much for reading through my draft and for helping me out! Best, Takeru Watanabe (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 4

[edit]

Help change the (booking agent)

[edit]

Hi! The article I made has (booking agent) added to the name. I did not add that, it is wrong. I wanted to change that to (producer or talent producer), but have no idea how to do it. Christopher McDonald (booking agent) I would appreciate your help a lot. It was added by somebody else. Booking agent is a completely different thing from talent booker. J2009j (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for drafts, not completed articles, but see Help:Moving a page for how to rename a page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j: Your comment brought my attention to the article. It seems his only claim to notability is winning an Emmy, which is not a problem in itself. In the article, however, it claims he "won a daytime Emmy as a Talent Producer and Talent Booker for the "The Kelly Clarkson Show" in 2024", which I wasn't sure was even possible. And sure enough, the citation attached is not only for the 2022 Emmys, but is also for the actor Christopher McDonald, a completely different person, for his role in Hacks. Unless you have some reasonable explanation for this, I will be nominating it for deletion. Also, you seem to have some sort of connection with the subject that you have not disclosed, because his picture has been uploaded as "Your own work" which implies you know him personally. C F A 💬 02:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the point- won a daytime Emmy as a Talent Producer for the "The Kelly Clarkson Show"- that is possible. I mentioned it is an Emmy in 2024. You added a different year. You can open page 9 https://theemmys.tv/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Daytime-Noms-w-Credits-ao-5-3.pdf It is from 2024. Chris McDonald- talent producer.
Also, he and the actor with the same name - are not the same person. This Christopher McDonald will act in - Superman 2025.
I also disagree- "his only claim to notability is winning an Emmy". He is a talent producer of a multiple famous shows.
I also added for the picture a comment that is is my own work, and that I work in entertainment, and I have pictures of many people I take for events. I was in audience at one of the show episodes, with 100 other people. It is available to everyone. J2009j (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j: Being a talent producer for multiple shows does astonishingly very little to help for notability, and in fact may be an active hindrance. "Backstage" personnel are far less likely to receive any sort of press relative to the actors themselves. If the Emmy is all you have then writing any article of substance is virtually impossible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add anything. That document is the citation you cited to the claim that he won an Emmy as a talent producer in 2024. On page 31 it reads:
Hacks • The One, The Only • HBO/HBO Max • Universal Television in association with Paulilu, First Thought Productions, Fremulon Productions, 3 Arts Entertainment Christopher McDonald as Marty
This Christopher McDonald has never won an Emmy award. He is listed as a minor credit, as a "talent producer", on a show that won an Emmy. Being a "talent producer" on multiple shows does not show notability through any applicable guideline, so they must meet the general notability guideline instead. I see no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to prove that is the case. C F A 💬 03:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a minor credit. We had a long discussion somewhere about this. He is the talent producer of all 5 seasons of the Kelly Clarkson. Talent producer bringing all the guest to the show, all the celebrities is not exactly a "Backstage" personnel. I also disagree- "has never won an Emmy award". There are usually a few hundred people working on shows.
Only main figures are listed for awards and nominations. Plus, it is an actor for a major upcoming superhero film. I am personally a comic book fan in the past.
Page 9 https://theemmys.tv/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Daytime-Noms-w-Credits-ao-5-3.pdf If this is not in the article, I'll replace it. J2009j (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can say what you want, but he doesn't meet the general notability guidelines or WP:ANYBIO. He has not won an Emmy. He was a talent producer for an Emmy-awarded show. The other Chris McDonald, on the other hand, would be presumed notable because of his Emmy win as it was actually awarded to him. I assume the reviewer only accepted it because the article claims he won an Emmy award with an incorrect citation attached to it. C F A 💬 03:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j: Unless his name specifically is on the Emmy, he cannot be assumed to have won it. And yes, a talent producer is "backstage" personnel, no matter how important they are to the show's operation. (The phrase implies they do practically no work while out in front of the camera, and thus their work and efforts would ultimately not be commented on by reviewers barring egregious faults.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:49, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Leemhwiki12

[edit]

Hi there, I have added in references to the Draft article as recommended by Wiki editors and would like to know if the page is now considered suitable for submission. Leemhwiki12 (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leemhwiki12: we don't provide pre-reviews here at the help desk, you will get a full assessment of your draft when you submit it for another review. If you have a more specific question, you're welcome to ask that, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Leemhwiki12 (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:26, 4 August 2024 review of submission by WikiLoreKeeper

[edit]

I need some help to create a wiki entry WikiLoreKeeper (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiLoreKeeper: sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. In any case, this help desk is for drafts undergoing the AfC review process. If you have general questions about how to edit Wikipedia, you can ask them at the Teahouse or Help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Abhiramakella

[edit]

I need assistance on this article. Abhiramakella (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhiramakella: can you be more specific; what assistance do you need? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can I write this article in a encyclopedia format? Abhiramakella (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhiramakella: you need to find a few (3+) sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, and summarise (in your own words, but without any additional commentary or embellishment) what they have said about this subject, citing each source against the information it has provided; see the WP:GOLDENRULE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:09, 4 August 2024 review of submission by 72.92.37.34

[edit]

How do I improve this page? 72.92.37.34 (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a little bit harsh. @DoubleGrazing Even your questioning my relationship to the singer. Why is that? If you feel that you do not want us to write here. It's okay. Too direct and not considered further. I was planning to write more about other subjects but since this is how you communicate to other new writers. Then we will not continue. Thank you for your reply. IannaOPM (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has literally been rejected. It cannot be resubmitted. There's no point in writing anything more because there's nothing they can do to get it accepted. C F A 💬 15:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IannaOPM: what does your comment have to do with Draft:Altron? Are you saying you're its author? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IannaOPM: Even your questioning my relationship to the singer. Unless my eyes very much deceive me, the draft is about a video game developer/publisher (and one that was rejected due to failure to accept reviewers' criticisms). If you have any alternative accounts, I strongly encourage you to identify them here, because what you wrote is otherwise very likely to get you blocked. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 4 August 2024 review of submission by IannaOPM

[edit]

Hello, what else to we need to do to enhance or correct the wikipedia entry? IannaOPM (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IannaOPM: you need to show that the person is notable, either by the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline.
You also need to support the information with reliable sources throughout.
And finally, you must write in a neutral and factual, non-promotional manner.
Who is "we" in your question?
And what is your relationship with this subject? (I've posted a query on your talk page, please read and respond to it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Im just one of the fans. Writing for the artist. There are sources I have submitted. I appreciate your feedback. I will re-write then. Thank you. IannaOPM (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IannaOPM: you must be a really dedicated fan, given that 100% of your edits have to do with her, and you seem to follow her around taking photos.
And who is "we"? Your question was "what else to we need to do". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We means im one of the fans. Yes we followed her music. Anyways, if this is not going to continue. It's okay. we will not continue publishing it. IannaOPM (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IannaOPM: I will look at your sources. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. For an article on a living person this is completely unacceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:46, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suites

[edit]

why my article got declined? Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suites (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bin Khaleel Bath & Kitchen Suites: because it's pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. And you can expect to be blocked imminently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Manghrat123

[edit]

Good afternoon to whomever it may concern. I submitted my draft and I made sure to include the appropriate amount of references and speak from an unbiased historical point of view, what is the issue? Manghrat123 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manghrat123: please don't ask the same question in several places, I've just replied to this on my talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
k, thanks. Manghrat123 (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 4 August 2024 review of submission by OldPlanetMedia

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Beat_Cops_(TV_pilot)

Greetings, I'd like to see if there's anything else I can do to get this Beat Cops pilot entry published. I understand that there's not a ton of in-depth sources available online but it was a project produced for a major network (FOX) and features several well-known actors that were just starting out back in the early 2000s (Benjamin, Seder, Mandvi).

I've added a dozen citations and put a good amount of effort into ensuring the legitimacy and thouroughness of the article. I believe that this will help the entry serve as the main online hub for any future web searches regarding Beat Cops.

Thanks for your time, have a great day! OldPlanetMedia (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We accept offline sources, if properly cited. (For periodicals, use {{cite news}} or {{cite magazine}} and provide the name of the outlet, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), the article name, the article byline, and the pages the article is on.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OldPlanetMedia: Just a heads up: You're going to get blocked unless you change your username because it represents a company and you are editing promotionally. You have not disclosed your presumably financial relationship with this company either, which is a violation of Wikimedia's terms of use. C F A 💬 16:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed they have been blocked; but their name doesn't show as struck through for me, because their rename request went through about an hour later. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 4 August 2024 review of submission by Mlondon101

[edit]

This review was denied due to references not being reliable and the subject not being suitable for Wikipedia. He is a magician who has been featured on America's Got Talent season seven, which is even linked to that Wikipedia page where he is listed. He's performed on Penn & Teller and the YouTube video link is included. He's been on other talk shows, which I tried to include before, but were denied, since they aren't his videos. I see other living person biographies using LinkedIn as references for education/work. He gives speeches to troubled youth, drawing inspiration from his youth. His father is a famous Jazz musician, which is linked to another Wikipedia page. What is the problem with current references? I've seen the people who have been included in Category:Living people, and don't buy it that he is not suitable for a Wikipedia page compared to what I see that has already been accepted, with similar references. Malcolm Puckering has a lot of reference sources, many of which are video of him on famous shows, which should count a reliable source, since he's right there performing in front of your very eyes. I'm going to need some definitive reasons for why the page and references aren't acceptable. ? Mlondon101 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlondon101: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"), and note that EVERYTHING that a reasonable person could challenge MUST be sourced:
Only one of your sources is any good - fatal for any subject but actively problematic for articles on living persons where the sourcing requirements are much stricter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlondon101: I can't comment on the first source, because it's not available in my region, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it's okay. The second source is primary, as is the third, and the fourth one doesn't even mention Puckering. We require 3+ source meeting the WP:GNG standard to establish notability.
Not to mention that articles on living people need to be comprehensively supported by inline citations reliable published sources, whereas your draft is almost entirely unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 5

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

August 6

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your Minecraft server. If independent reliable sources like news reports discuss your server, that would be different. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
If there are no such sources then there cannot be an article. ColinFine (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 7

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

A few times it was a problem of notability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your draft is still lacking any reliable, independent, secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

So I'm trying to ascertain:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

August 8

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

August 9

[edit]

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

[edit]

What's problem 

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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

Clearly unlikely to be accepted, I have tagged it for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any further threads on this draft will be summarily removed as disruptive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1239488483"