Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dancematters (talk | contribs) at 15:53, 26 October 2024 (→15:16, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Dancematters: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


October 20

01:51, 20 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:6180:6290:ED8E:28D7:94A9:E4AD

My submission was denied. Why? 2600:1700:6180:6290:ED8E:28D7:94A9:E4AD (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is clearly provided for you: Zero sources cited. Where did the information come from? How are we supposed to know it even exists? C F A 💬 03:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:26, 20 October 2024 review of submission by Logojech

Hello Sir. Kindly assist Us to get the Page on Wikipedia. The Page is genuine and is regarding to an Indian Administrative Service(IAS) Officer who is currently Chairman of Visakhapatnam Port Authority(VPA) , one of the 13 major ports in the country. Thank you. Logojech (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Logojech: the sources in your draft do not establish notability, in fact they don't even contribute towards it. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing. There is a Tamil Wikipedia article on the same person.Can i use this as an additional citation? https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%85%E0%AE%99%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%81 Bhargavambati (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhargavambati: no, you cannot cite Wikipedia (any language version) as a source on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Logojech Who is "us"? Do you work for the Port Authority? 331dot (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hii . I dont work for Port Authority. My friend is helping me on how to post in Wikipedia. In fact, I dont know difference between Sandbox and Draft. So i thought of writing it that way. Bhargavambati (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhargavambati: I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, which I would ask you to respond to at your earliest opportunity. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 20 October 2024 review of submission by 2A02:2F0F:E20C:8600:5C79:4741:C8A5:4FE9

Hi, i'm creating to create a Wikipedia page for a friend who's a Romanian painter but i'm being denied due to the missing references. what do i need to add in order for the page to be accepted? Thank you? 2A02:2F0F:E20C:8600:5C79:4741:C8A5:4FE9 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, you need references that meet all three of the criteria in WP:42: they must be reliable (not blogs or social media), independent (not written, published, or commissioned by the artist or his associates - including galleries that have exhibited him) and contain significant coverage of him, not just of his works). If you cannot find several such sources, you should give up, as it will not be possible to create an article about him.
And you must write in English. (The sources can be in Romanian, if there aren't English sources). ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:10, 20 October 2024 review of submission by Pinezz

What other sources are needed for this page? Thanks Pinezz (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinezz: you need to tell us where the information is coming from. Of the four paragraphs in this draft, two (accounting for c. ⅔ of the text) are unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 20 October 2024 review of submission by Bolaji abegi

The subject is quite notable what should I do differently? 

Bolaji abegi (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. Next time, take a look at WP:NPOV. C F A 💬 14:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 20 October 2024 review of submission by Nidheshd82

I am new to wiki and i am finding it really difficult, is it possible for someone to help us get presence on wiki for our non profit organization - Mahadev Maitri Foundation. Nidheshd82 (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nidheshd82: we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. You can find pretty much everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA, and advice for referencing at WP:REFB.
Please note that we have no interest in what your organisation wants to tell the world about itself. We almost exclusively want to see what entirely independent and reliable third parties (mainly secondary sources) have said about your organisation and what makes it worthy of note.
You also must disclose your conflict of interest immediately. I have posted a message on your talk page with instructions. If you are employed by this organisation, you need to make the more specific paid-editing disclosure. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Nidheshd82. The phrase "presence on wiki" indicates that, like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. If there is ever a Wikipedia article about your Foundation, the article will not belong to the Foundation, will not be controlled by the Foundation, will not necessarily say would the Foundation would like it to say, and will not be for the benefit of the Foundation except incidentally. Please read an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 20 October 2024 review of submission by Bolaji abegi

I fixed all adjustments required in the first rejection. I am surprised to get another rejection..the references provided are credible.

I will like to add the I do not have a relationship with the subject rather he his very notable in my state. Bolaji abegi (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolaji abegi: evidently, you did not "fix all adjustments" (sic); the draft still provides insufficient evidence that the person is notable. Please bear in mind that only elected politicans (at national or state level) are considered inherently notable, unsuccessful also-rans have to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG.
Also, the draft was flagged for promotionality. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 20 October 2024 review of submission by TheBestWikiPublisher

Denying for no reason? TheBestWikiPublisher (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason look pretty clear..."Tedious resubmitting and adding non sources just website roots not sources for the claims - Also this is just continuation from the rejected Draft:3G Capital Management. Clearly only here to promote the subject. WP:NOTHERE" Theroadislong (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBestWikiPublisher: See also the response you received here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_17#23:11,_17_September_2024_review_of_submission_by_TheBestWikiPublisher. Please stop creating new drafts, and stop moving the existing drafts to other titles. --bonadea contributions talk 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 20 October 2024 review of submission by KyleSettlemyer2000

I need assistance undeleting this draft. Can someone help, please? Thank you! KyleSettlemyer2000 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not deleted. Do you mean you want to resubmit it? 331dot (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @KyleSettlemyer2000. The draft was rejected, after being declined five times by five different reviewers.
Your only chance of reviving this rejected draft is by approaching the rejecting reviewer, @S0091 and persuading them that you understand why it was rejected, and you have suitable sources (different than those already in the draft) that meet Wikipedia's requirements to establish notability. Please don't take up their time unless you have all that. ColinFine (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:38, 20 October 2024 review of submission by Dijkstra'sDemon

I created this page with several external references and submitted it for review. The article was rejected almost instantaneously. The reviewer could not have possible read the referenced material in such a short amount of time, so I can only conclude that the dismissal is unfounded. Dijkstra'sDemon (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies is not reading the article he reviews and declines. There are six references in the article, five of which are not written by the subject of the page. Still, he complains that "a biography needs outside references." Dijkstra'sDemon (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please edit this existing section, instead of creating a new thread with each comment.
Your first source is an interview, which is not independent. The second is something he wrote, also not independent. The third doesn't seem to mention him, though I might have missed it. The fourth briefly mentions him. The fifth is a product description. The last briefly mentions him. These do not establish notability.
Drmies is an experienced reviewer; I understand your frustration, but complaining about the reviewer is not the pathway forward. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is helpful feedback. Thanks. I have seen a lot of Wikipedia pages published about people with just a couple obscure blog posts as "references" which certainly don't rise to the level of notability that seems to be required here, but I'm happy to add a few more references that mention Lohstroh. Note that the third reference indeed doesn't mention him because it serves as a reference to a technical concept that's mentioned in the text. Dijkstra'sDemon (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dijkstra'sDemon Please see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. Not every article that exists went through this process, and this process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has. Articles can be created without being approved by anyone and can exist for decades. We can only address what we know about. If you'd like to help us, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
We aren't looking for just mentions, there needs to be significant coverage that goes into detail as to what the source sees as important/significant/influential about him. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The various sources cited in the draft article clearly explain that the famous amplifier design was due to Lohstroh and Otala. The design is discussed on Wikipedia on the Harman Kardon page. Matti Otala also has a biographical page on Wikipedia. Considering that Otala is sufficiently notable to have an article devoted to him, please explain why Lohstroh isn't. Dijkstra'sDemon (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the link to Otala is broken because the page is in Finnish. See https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matti_Otala Dijkstra'sDemon (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dijkstra'sDemon, in this edit you added some company's website (not independent, not acceptable) which mentions your subject once but says nothing about him, and the review you added from Hi-Fi News & Record Review might be helpful, but not really for an article about him since it contains hardly any biographical material (it's also cited incorrectly and I'm going to remove the link as a possible copyvio). Drmies (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself doesn't contain anything beyond the key contribution of the amplifier design, which is what Lohstroh is known for, precisely because there aren't any sources to cite. Why do you insist on biographical material from secondary sources to back up information that is not present in the article? Dijkstra'sDemon (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 20 October 2024 review of submission by Jjubitana

Why isn't my article showing up on the screen? Jjubitana (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't written anything into the draft. If you have composed text somewhere, it seems you didn't paste it into the right place.
Also, you should be aware that writing about yourself is strongly, strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked indefinitely by Ad Orientem via AIV as a promotion-only account. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 21

01:25, 21 October 2024 review of submission by 98.116.99.122

Hello - included some additional citations (Local News stations, Articles by third-parties, etc.) 98.116.99.122 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an advertisement board for a restaurant. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 21 October 2024 review of submission by SandeHart

Why is this concept and definition not allowed but Young Women's Leadership is? (This is only one example of a relative such title. SandeHart (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a really a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a platform to present new concepts or research. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's another aspect as well: appeals to action like We are all being called upon now to drop the confines of the old structures and reimaging how we move forward together, utilizing the very gifts our bodies and minds are entrusted with. do not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia cannot tell people what to do, or even talk about what would be more or less beneficial, in its own voice. And most of the draft is written in that persuasive manner. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that this is, in a word, vanispamcruftisement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I learnt a new word today! \o/ --bonadea contributions talk 10:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Michaelsweet01

To add an inline citation do I put a URL for an external site between <ref> and </ref>? Will it create a number automatically? Michaelsweet01 (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Michaelsweet01: you should use one of the citation templates, in the case of online sources {{cite web}}, which formats the citation correctly. And yes, the system numbers the citations in the order they appear in the page source, and links them automatically to the correct footnote which will appear at the bottom of the page. You can find more general advice on referencing at WP:REFB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

11:50, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Sun tzunar

Dear Wikipedia Moderators,

I am writing to respectfully appeal the decision regarding the rejection of the article submission for Giovanni Pietro Barbano and to explain the relevance and importance of creating this entry in alignment with Wikipedia’s notability and relevance standards.

1. Current Role and Importance of the Mission: Giovanni Pietro Barbano currently serves as the Head of the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX), which is the largest civilian mission ever deployed by the European Union under its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). EULEX plays a critical role in strengthening Kosovo’s justice system and rule of law institutions, which are vital components of its ongoing state-building efforts. The mission holds international strategic importance, as it is instrumental in maintaining regional stability in the Western Balkans, a priority area for EU foreign policy. Barbano’s position at the helm of EULEX grants him a highly influential role in European diplomacy, crisis management, and peace operations, which aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines on the notability of public figures in key international positions.

2. Precedent of Articles for EULEX Heads of Mission: It is important to note that the three previous Heads of Mission for EULEX—Lars-Gunnar Wigemark, Alexandra Papadopoulou, and Gabriele Meucci—all have articles on Wikipedia, largely due to the significance of this particular post. The role of the Head of Mission at EULEX is recognized as a highly notable position due to the mission's importance to both European Union foreign policy and international efforts to stabilize the Balkans region. As Barbano holds the same position, his article should logically follow the same precedent as his predecessors, particularly considering the ongoing relevance of EULEX in international security.

3. Distinguished Career and International Contributions: In addition to his current role, Barbano has over 40 years of service in law enforcement and international peacekeeping operations, including significant contributions to missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and leadership in the European Gendarmerie Force (EUROGENDFOR). His leadership in key international engagements such as the Western European Union Police Mission and EUFOR ALTHEA demonstrates his long-standing commitment to international peace and security. His direct involvement in these high-profile missions supports his notability, particularly within the context of European and global peacekeeping efforts and had a direct influence on the development of stability policing and police peacekeeping doctrine..

4. Recognition and Honors: Barbano's career has been recognized with prestigious international honors, including the Legion of Merit (Officer Degree) awarded by the President of the United States, and the Knight Cross of the Military Order of Italy, the highest military decoration of the Italian Republic which endorsment alone would deserve a mention in Wikipedia. These recognitions underscore his exceptional service and contributions to international security, further validating his importance as a notable figure in both military and diplomatic circles.

5. Public Interest and Academic Relevance: Given the international scope of EULEX and the prominent role of Barbano, the creation of a Wikipedia article would contribute to public knowledge of EULEX’s operations, the challenges facing Kosovo’s justice system, and the broader context of European Union foreign and security policy. His biography is also of significant interest to researchers and students in international relations, peace studies, and security studies. Such articles are critical for enhancing public awareness of key individuals who play pivotal roles in shaping global security landscapes.

Conclusion: Considering his extensive contributions to international crisis management, leadership in peace operations, and current role as Head of EULEX, Giovanni Pietro Barbano clearly meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability as a public figure of international significance. His career and contributions should be available to the global audience as they provide valuable insight into European security operations and the promotion of rule of law in post-conflict regions. I kindly request that the decision be reconsidered and that his article be published in order to reflect the significance of his role and impact on international peacekeeping efforts.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Sun Tzunar Sun tzunar (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to that. in order to provide further context on the significance of the subject in alignment with Wikipedia’s notability standards, I would like to address the sources cited in the article, demonstrating their reliability and relevance to the submission.
    • 1. Reputable and Independent Sources Cited:**
The submission draws on independent and reliable sources, including official documents from the European Union and other governmental organizations, to verify Giovanni Pietro Barbano's current role and career accomplishments. The following sources are highlighted in the article:
- **European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX):**
EULEX itself is a highly reputable source for confirming Barbano’s current position as the Head of Mission. Official EULEX websites and press releases are widely regarded as reliable, authoritative resources for factual information regarding the mission and its leadership. This includes Barbano's appointment by the EU Political and Security Committee on June 26, 2023, which is a verifiable and significant milestone in his career.
- **European Union Documentation (EEAS):**
The European External Action Service (EEAS) is the diplomatic arm of the EU and a primary source for information on EU missions, including EULEX. Their published materials and decisions on mission leadership provide the basis for validating Barbano’s official appointment and the strategic importance of his position in Kosovo. These are neutral, independently published documents that meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability.
- **Italian Government and Defense Ministry Websites:**
Barbano’s long-standing military service, his leadership roles within the Carabinieri, and his recognition by the Italian government are well-documented by official publications and communications from the Italian Ministry of Defense. For instance, his receipt of the **Knight Cross of the Military Order of Italy** in 2022, awarded by the President of Italy, is verifiable through Italy’s official honors system, providing another highly credible source.
- **International Recognitions (e.g., Legion of Merit):**
Barbano’s receipt of the **Legion of Merit (Officer Degree)** from the President of the United States in 2019 can be confirmed via independent governmental sources and documentation from the U.S. government. This international honor is awarded to individuals who demonstrate exceptional service, and its citation in the article further underscores the global recognition of his contributions. This honor, awarded by an independent foreign government, strengthens the validity of Barbano’s notability.
    • 2. Importance of Precedent Set by Reliable Sources:**
It is also important to point out that the article is structured similarly to those of his predecessors, all of whom have Wikipedia entries largely based on their role as Head of EULEX. For example, **Lars-Gunnar Wigemark** (one of Barbano’s predecessors) has a Wikipedia entry that references similar sources: EULEX publications, EU decisions, and relevant press releases. The fact that these types of sources are already deemed acceptable for his predecessors demonstrates that the same types of sources for Barbano should also be considered reliable and independent for his article.
    • 3. Avoiding "Peacock" Terms:**
The sources quoted in the article focus strictly on factual, verifiable information from government and institutional reports. These sources avoid promotional language and focus solely on Barbano’s career milestones, international recognitions, and current responsibilities. The use of reputable, neutral sources like EU and government documentation ensures that the article adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality and objectivity, avoiding any language that could be considered biased or promotional.
    • 4. Public Interest and Academic Relevance:**
Given the geopolitical importance of the EULEX mission and Barbano's leadership, the availability of a Wikipedia article based on these independent, verifiable sources would serve the public interest by providing access to accurate and reliable information about a key figure in European and international security operations. Scholars, researchers, and the general public interested in EU missions and peacekeeping operations would benefit from an authoritative entry, grounded in credible sources, that explains his role and contributions.
    • Conclusion:**
The article on Giovanni Pietro Barbano is backed by a range of independent and reliable sources, including official EU, Italian, and U.S. government publications. These sources meet Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and neutrality. Additionally, given the precedent of his three predecessors having Wikipedia entries based on their leadership of EULEX, Barbano’s article similarly warrants inclusion. I kindly request that the decision be reconsidered based on the reliable sources cited and the notability of the subject. Sun tzunar (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sun tzunar: I will admit straight off the bat that I haven't read your massive wall of text. The reason being, the draft cites primary sources only, which do not establish notability per WP:GNG. It was therefore correctly declined. That is pretty much the long and the short of it, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sun tzunar Thank you for your long treatise. Rather, thank you for both your long treatises. However, may I commend brevity to you, please?
The nub of the issue that you have not presented the subject as notable, nor have you verified with references any notability. That is a little Catch 22, since you can't say what is not referenced and you can't reference what is not said.
Without stated and verified notability in a WIkipedia sense the subject is a WP:ROTM senior law officer. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you write this using ChatGPT? The style is very similar, and seems to rely more on vague notions of valuable insight and Wikipedia's criteria for notability as a public figure of international significance, instead of our actual policies and guidelines ("public figure of international significance" is not a criterion for notability, we want in-depth secondary coverage in independent sources).
Also, we don't have "moderators", users reviewing AfC articles and giving advice are volunteers rather than any kind of higher-ups. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I fail to grasp your point, especially considering the countless articles on Wikipedia concerning public officials, military personnel, senior law enforcement officials, etc., whose notability and relevance are solely based on the positions they have held throughout their own careers. In this case, we are dealing with a political appointment by an international body (the European Union's PSC), which makes this figure unquestionably notable.
As for the issue of sources, what could be more referenced than the official appointment document from the PSC published on the mission's official website? Sun tzunar (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable independent sources say, an " official appointment document" is a primary source and of little use here. Also see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sun tzunar The problem you face is simple. Put plain, you want the article? Then you work with the rules. So please make the effort to grasp the point, which is non negotiable.
Or, I suppose, you could argue. Please don't do that. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying just to thank you for your response and to reassure that I absolutely want to adhere to the rules, as my goal is to contribute meaningful articles also on broader topics related to peacekeeping institutions and prominent figures who are shaping doctrinal and operational development. However, I’m still struggling to fully understand what exactly is needed to establish notability in practical terms. If I look at similar articles present on Wikipedia, I can see little or no difference with the references I provided. So, I would really appreciate further advice on how to best meet these criteria, as I hope to add more valuable contributions in the future.
Best regards Sun tzunar (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sun tzunar: do not look to other articles to model yours on; unless they are rated good articles, they may have various shortcomings, which you won't want to replicate.
To establish notability, you must base your draft on sources which meet the WP:GNG notability guideline; this applies to virtually every article. Find a few (3-5) such sources, and summarise what they say, citing each source against the information it has provided. It's that 'simple' (which means, it's not simple at all, but it can be described in such simple terms). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 21 October 2024 review of submission by 98.116.99.122

Hello, this article has been changed to meet Wikipedia standards. thank you! 98.116.99.122 (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. I am still not seeing the notability here, but pinging in the rejecting review @S0091 Qcne (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TikTok is not a reliable source so should not be used, Resy was written by the the restaurant and for booking reservations so not reliable thus should not be used, their website is not useful, another is a press release and one is a local news station. Business Insider is ok but that's not enough to meet notability so the rejection stands. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:09, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Elisa Polea

Hello everyone, I previously had a draft about Iker Unzu rejected, with the reasoning that the topic wasn’t sufficiently notable. That was a few months ago, and since then, Unzu has hosted the YouTube Works Awards 2024 alongside YouTube's Vice President Pedro Pina in Madrid. He was also awarded the Diamond Play Button in a ceremony during the event.

In addition, Unzu has a significant social media presence, with over 30 million followers globally, ranking as the 30th most subscribed YouTuber in Spain and the 18th most followed creator on TikTok.

I would like to understand why this isn't considered sufficient for notability, especially given that other articles have less recognition and fewer trustworthy sources. Could anyone provide advice on how to improve the submission to meet Wikipedia’s standards?

Thank you so much in advance for your help. Elisa Polea (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisa Polea: first off, just to say that I have not reviewed this draft, I'm only commenting on what you say. Social media metrics, awards (other than perhaps those of the very highest order), etc. do not make anyone notable. They may generate media coverage, such that this makes the person notable, but that's an indirect causality.
As for other articles that may exist out there (on which point, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, but by reference to the prevailing policies and guidelines. Any number of problematic articles exist among the nearly 7m in the English-language Wikipedia, but this does not mean we should create more such problems. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Manjirouchacer

They told me that it isn't a notable topic but if you search Tsotello's name on the internet, he shows up everytime, even with pictures. I understand at the time I made this page, he wasn't as popular, but currently he is a topic on Google, Bing and wherever. Manjirouchacer (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means nothing. Sources are king, and your sources are completely worthless - three are broken and the last is IMDb, which we can't cite. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Wishpoduct

How i can write a biography of a person? Wishpoduct (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wishpoduct by very carefully reading WP:Biographies_of_living_persons. If you wanted to try and create another draft about yourself: don't. You are not notable and do not merit a Wikipedia article. Please see the messages I left on your User Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft deleted per WP:CSD#G11 and user blocked. --Kinu t/c 16:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Lipovci

What to add under refrences? Like where is information from or something? Lipovci (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lipovci: See Help:Referencing for beginners. I would also suggest that the best sources you're going to find are professional reviews of the vehicles from reputable publications. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:56, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Breakfast007

Can you pease comment, why the link to this historic house in Malden, MA was deleted?

https://w.wiki/Bc$m Breakfast007 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was only deleted due to inactivity, you may request its restoration at WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Breakfast007: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but just to say that your draft Draft:Cox-Haven House was deleted over a year ago, because it hadn't been edited for 6+ months. You still seem to have some related content in your sandbox User:Breakfast007/sandbox and on your user page User:Breakfast007. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 21 October 2024 review of submission by 88.97.133.226

Why is the page not publishing 88.97.133.226 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected. It is completely unsourced and shows no indication of notability. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, 21 October 2024 review of submission by Hanlo Benjamen

How do I post this to the Afrikaans Wikipedia? 

Hanlo Benjamen (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hanlo Benjamen you'll have to copy and paste it. There's no mechanism for moving content from one language Wikipedia to another. Nthep (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 21 October 2024 review of submission by UpWriteGhost

Hi can you let me know when this article will be reviewed again? UpWriteGhost (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UpWriteGhost, it says right at the top of your draft that drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,227 pending submissions waiting for review. Is there some part of that which you do not understand? If reviewed now, your draft would be declined. You are using non-neutral language such as distinguished career in healthcare innovation and has played a pivotal role in developing technologies. You cannot cite praise like that to user submitted content and an interview with him. The biggest problem by far with your draft is that it completely lacks references to reliable sources that are totally independent of Debgupta and that devote significant coverage of Debgupta. The quality of your references is vastly more important than their quantity, and you have no high quality sources. Cullen328 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not. Nobody can tell you when it will get reviewed, because this will happen when one of the reviewers looks at it and decides to review it. It could be minutes or months.
Looking through the citations (not at the sources themselves) I doubt that many of them meet the triple requirement of reliability, independence, and significant coverage (see WP:42). Unless several sources meet those requirements, the article will not demonstrate that Debgupta meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and it will not be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 21 October 2024 review of submission by 148.77.46.178

Hello, I've revised and resubmitted the posting a few times and I need to know what I need to correct as I am not sure why it is not being accepted. Thanks! Coco 148.77.46.178 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that this person meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NCREATIVE. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:10, 21 October 2024 review of submission by 47.190.117.192

This is a well-known podcaster whose page keeps getting rejected, largely due to a lack of evidence and poor sources around his early life and business claims.

At this stage, though, he is most notable as a media figure. Are his early life and career sections even worth including? There are plenty of mainstream news articles independently confirming details about his show, Youtube channel, and notable guests. 47.190.117.192 (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft will still be declined, given that you're relying on Youtube for FN13 and 14 (FN1, FN7 is WP:ABOUTSELF for sure)... Biographies missing "Career" sections can result in possible problems, since the critical lack of coverage would definitely screw the article over. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed and missing are references to reliable sources completely independent of Bet-David that devote significant coverage to Bet-David. Without such sources, the draft cannot possibly be accepted. Three excellent sources are vastly better than 20 mediocre sources. You have no excellent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


October 22

00:02, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Jooliah

I need help resubmitting for approval Jooliah (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you... just delete the rejection template to resubmit it by force? Don't do that, you can appeal the rejection by discussing it with the rejecter if you are sure that it is significantly improved and meets guidelines like WP:CREATIVE. Make sure the sources have significant coverage. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:08, 22 October 2024 review of submission by BlakeB93

I'd like to resubmit a fully redone unique encyclopedia article version of this paper "Darksort" on Google Scholar and published in a scientific journal. The current edit is the current redone version. I believe it could be great for wikipedia. Regards. BlakeB93 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlakeB93: This is still written like a research essay and assumes the reader has a background in compsci. We do not assume our reader has any specialised background knowledge, as a rule. (Or as I usually put it, you're writing for Joe Blow from San Antonio, not for people who're read-in to the necessary background.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, regards. BlakeB93 (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the topic (and I know you are blocked), copyright is granted automatically upon publication. Even if you wrote the paper, we cannot accept a copy-pasted/close-paraphrased version of it because standard all-rights-reserved copyright is mutually-exclusive with both of our content licences, and the only way to reconcile those differences would be to formally re-release the text of the paper under one of those licences. Posting it to Wikipedia in a lightly-edited form will not do that. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it has no sources at all.
@BlakeB93, Wikipedia has absolutely zero interest in what you know (or in what I know, or what any random person on the internet knows). A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject. No sources, no article. ColinFine (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) "Wikipedia has absolutely zero interest in what you know". First off, you couldn't be more (Personal attack removed) than saying Wikipedia has no interest in what a published scholar has written. It has sources, one is an academic journal on google scholar, where the paper was published. That paper contains 6 sources. I could work on sources more, but honestly have no interest, because I'm disgusted by you and people like you. Lol. Your loss, wikipedia's loss, not mine. I'm already published and on Google scholar with my research. (Personal attack removed) BlakeB93 (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlakeB93: that better be your last personal attack here, and I would very strongly advise apologising for and/or retracting it ASAP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have indefinitely blocked BlakeB93 for personal attacks abd harassment. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've redacted both the personal attacks and the ASCII art. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:20, 22 October 2024 review of submission by TheMann1989

Hello, I recently had my article Draft:Bliss (Tech N9ne album) declined by User:Dan arndt (because Apple Music was my only source at the time of declination) and User:SafariScribe. I would like for someone else to review it again and see if it is eligible for submission. User:SafariScribe insists that I don't have enough "credible" sources, but in comparison to other Tech N9ne discography articles I feel I do. TheMann1989 (talk) 05:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMann1989: the question isn't whether this draft's referencing is as good as some existing article's, but rather whether it is enough to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NALBUM notability guideline.
If you've addressed the reason(s) for the previous decline, you will get a new review when you resubmit your draft. If instead you're saying you disagree with that review, then you'll need to take this up with the last reviewer, or if you don't get engagement, explain here at the help desk where the review went wrong. And by 'explain', I don't mean "I feel they're wrong", but rather "this draft complies with the relevant guidelines and here's the evidence". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 22 October 2024 review of submission by DareshMohan

I fixed the page, added the negative reception of his films. He passes WP:NACTOR for acting in 4+ films in lead roles. DareshMohan (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DareshMohan: okay... and? I take it you're saying this should be published, in which case you can just move it into the main article space yourself, as you have the necessary permissions and don't need our approval. Just remember to clear out the AfC templates after you've published it (or let us know and we'll do that). Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I don't have the rights to move this page due to the whole controversy surrounding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Symon_Sadik/Archive. If you were to make it an article, though, it is best to put it under the supervision of @Ravensfire:, @CNMall41:, who have to work like the Avengers to keep the article neutral. DareshMohan (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan: oh, sorry, I didn't notice the title is protected, my bad! In that case, I can't help either, as I'm not an admin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of socking and UPE to push this person makes this very, very difficult for me to dispassionately review this page. That said, I think there's enough to show a base level of notability that might be enough to survive an AFD discussion. Having mentions in a couple of reviews is helpful for showing notability. That's about as far as I'm willing to go here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can request the protection be lifted and then move the page. No admin access is required. If you would like, I can look at it closer but I have a question about notability. No one is inherently notable for acting in films. The guideline states they "may be notable," not "are" notable. I hear this argument in AfD discussions all the time, but notability is all about the significant coverage. Since you spent the time to work on it and clean it up (thank you for that by the way), let me know the sources showing notability and I will take a look and even request the protection removed if warranted. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:35, 22 October 2024 review of submission by MM Comms

Hello! My page for Qonto in English has recently been published, thank you for your help! I am trying to link the page to the already existing pages in French, Spanish and Ukranian. Can you please help me with that? MM Comms (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MM Comms So, your username suggests you are employed by Qonto; if so, you need to make the stricter paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. I will post information about this on your user talk page.
This page is to ask questions about drafts in the draft process, you may want to try the more general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I just went ahead and did it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Prashanthudupa

Mr. Y K Muddukrishna is an ex-government administrator and a well-known singer. His contribution to the light music field is enormous. So, I request that you publish his profile in your esteemed portal. Kindly let me know what the procedure is for hosting his profile here. Thank you very much in advance for the help. Prashanthudupa (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanthudupa We don't have "profiles" here, we have articles. If you want to write a profile, that's what social media is for. Your draft is completely unsourced and reads as a resume. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the definition of a notable person. It isn't for merely documenting someone's professional qualifications and activities. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Arthatruth

Dear editors, I have made a draft page for the 1981 Iran Massacre. The draft highlights a mass atrocity in Iran's recent history. The Wikipedia contribution is based on scientific articles and UN-reports. All academic references and UN-article are also referenced in the contribution in view of academic standards. However, the draft submission has been declined by an editor "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified". Given that the contribution is based on highly reliable resources (including most recent UN reports), I wonder how this issue could be resolved. Thanks Arthatruth (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the draft, but from what you say above, many of your sources are primary sources. That is not enough: a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent secondary sources have published about a subject. Writing an article begins with finding reliable secondary sources which discuss the subject in depth. ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 22 October 2024 review of submission by 77.77.222.34

How to add relevant reference? 77.77.222.34 (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit academic, now that this draft has been rejected. Rejection means the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Immaculate Namanda

Can the article be edited for it to be fit for publishing ? Immaculate Namanda (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Immaculate Namanda: this draft is pure promotion, so probably the best thing to do is to blow it up and start again.
Wikipedia articles are compiled by summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about a subject. If you can identify multiple such sources, then you may be able to draft an article based on their coverage. It will almost certainly be very different from this rejected draft, hence my comment about starting again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Kindly requesting in assistance in editing the article Immaculate Namanda (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted as unambiguous promotion. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your initial post, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. What specific questions do you have? We can't co-edit with you. I can suggest that you read WP:SOLUTIONS. In short, "solutions" is marketing puffery. Are you associated with this business? 331dot (talk) 13:47, 22 October 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. ColinFine (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords cases pages

I have written

to match

I would like to make List of House of Lords cases a directory of links to these pages.

I have matched the existing structure of the 3 existing pages, but the drafts were rejected for not having secondary sources. But this hasn't happened for the three existing pages. This also does not seem to apply to List of acts of the Scottish Parliament from 2024, so I am confused why it is being applied to these pages. I was under the impression that law-related lists did not have the same requirements and apex court cases are inherently notable. SqrtLog (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:50, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Shaneapickle

I want the page to be turned into a stub, because there is currently no image of the comet Shaneapickle (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaneapickle: sorry, not sure what you mean? If published as-is, this would certainly be rated as a stub. However, it cannot be published, as it is unreferenced.
Moreover, images have no bearing on whether a draft can be accepted or not, so that isn't really an issue at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaneapickle: No sources, no article, no debate. Focus on actually getting sources first. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got a source from starwalk Shaneapickle (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://starwalk.space/en/news/upcoming-comets Shaneapickle (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaneapickle: then you need to cite the source(s) in the draft. We don't go looking for possible sources out there in the universe, we look at what is cited (or not) in the draft. This draft cites nought. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i added a reference about the comet Shaneapickle (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:REFB for help with formatting sources I have edited your draft to comply with WP:MOS, but it could do with more sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Fa.ahmadi

Hello,

I would like to know about the errors of my article. I have added the references recently but I would like to know if they work or not.

Sincerely Fa.Ahmadi Fa.ahmadi (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provided link does not go to draftspace, and article was deleted in 2016 as an unsourced BLP. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Ashkan Saberi
@Fa.ahmadi: Aside from the body of the text being very difficult to read, there remain unsourced claims in the article. As a rule, everything that could be challenged by a reasonable person must be sourced or removed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of your sources are reliable independent sources which discuss Saberi at length? (see WP:42). Those are the only kind of sources which are relevant to determining whether or not he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. If there are not sufficient sources of that nature, then no article will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Jennie Jennie 1

Hi, I have a draft being rejected, I wonder if I can continue work on it? Jennie Jennie 1 (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could but it would require WP:TNT and starting afresh it is just blatant marketing at the moment with zero chance of acceptance. Theroadislong (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Grassjunky

Hello, could you please clarify which of the sources are considered not reliable or primary? Grassjunky (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Coffeeandkittens25

I am having trouble understanding if this page's sources are failing the notability criteria or the independence criteria and why. The existing sources include direct coverage from CNBC, LA Times, Bloomberg, Washington Post, ABC News, and several government listings. Ven-A-Care is not affiliated with any of these organizations. Coffeeandkittens25 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources also include press releases which are not reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've just detailed the routine activities of the company, and not summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Normalman101

Multiple times this article has been denied on accounts of notability and lack of sources. However to my knowledge the article has sources that meet all critera. There are a few soures that are not secondary but the majority are, and as an acredited government insitution I think it fits notability requirement. I don't understand why reviewers keep saying not enough sources as there seems to be enough. Either way I would appreciate guidence on the sourcing and notability situation. Normalman101 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normalman101: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature):
I see good sources being choked out by bad. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair, some of the sources I didn't find individualy and i had someone else more fluent verify. Thanks for mentioning what was dead, also some of the sources are only about building or graduation or creator to source those parts of the article. Thanks, i'll fix this. Normalman101 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:42, 22 October 2024 review of submission by Bushido77

I don't understand.

  • first I submitted the article and was told it was not written in an encyclopedic manner
  • then I spent a lot of time working on rewriting it to be more academic and less like an essay
  • after all that effort to re-write the article it was rejected as inappropriate for Wikipedia

I would like to request some type of mediation, arbitration, or dispute. A lot of work went into this and there is no legitimate reason to summarily reject this article.

What steps can I take for arbitration? Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 There is no formal process for this. Since you disagree with the reviewers you are welcome to move this to mainspace yourself. There is no guarantee that it will survive there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but my page says it is not eligible for "resubmission." I am new to this, how can I move it to the main space on my own? Thanks. Bushido77 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bushido77. What Timtrent is saying is that (because your account has been around long enough) you have the power to ignore the submission process and simply move the draft into mainspace.
I would not advise this, because I think it is very likely that somebody would nominate it for deletion rapidly, and you would only have wasted your and others' time.
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. What you know, believe or think, is of zero relevance (as is what I know, believe, or think, or what any other random person on the internet knows, believes, or thinks).
Which of your many sources is all three of reliable (i.e published by a publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control), independent (i.e. not affiliated with any Christian martial arts organisation - and, ideally, not affiliated with any Christian organisation or martial arts organisation), and containing significant coverage of the specific topic "Christiam martial arts"? Those are the only kind of sources which can contribute to establishing that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe the article has appropriate documentation. Where would you suggest I find sources that are not from Christians and also not from martial artists that would be reliable? Bushido77 (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bushido77 The way Wikipedia works, unless another editor is inspired to assist, you are responsible for finding the sourcing you need. I th9jnk you have created this draft WP:BACKWARDS. Its a link worth reading 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found over 30 references to Christian martial arts in books and magazines and more than 30 Christian martial arts ministries.
Thanks I will look at WP:BACKWARDS.
I sent the article to the main space. Someone else moved it to Drafts. Bushido77 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 23

00:39, 23 October 2024 review of submission by 173.222.1.164

why did my article get declined 

173.222.1.164 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What draft would that be? There's nothing in your contributions list. (If you mistakenly wrote this while logged-out, please log back in and provide a link.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:37, 23 October 2024 review of submission by Sassysusie13

Reviewer rejected article, but did not leave any meaningful feedback on why. The comment left is very vague and subjective. Sassysusie13 (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red XN Draft is not rejected, it is declined. Rejected drafts are unable to be resubmitted, while declined articles can be resubmitted after improvements. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the comments left below the templates. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:49, 23 October 2024 review of submission by Gus0824

This is the first site that I’ve ever edited. I don’t know what was wrong with it and how to fix it. Gus0824 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was a one-sentence article that was sourced to two pages sourced to the subject of the article. To write an article about this company, you need to start with reliable sources that are independent of the company, that provide significant coverage that is about the company. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of things that exist. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:29, 23 October 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. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 23 October 2024 review of submission by Ceri Aber

I am unsure how to continue as my citations include Oxford University Press - quoting The Encyclopedia of popular Music and the Victoria and Albert Museum website for Glastonbury Festival plus Numerous Newspaper and Music journals which are independent from the actual Band. I would like to know exactly what is the problem so it can be addressed. Thank you. Ceri Aber (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceri Aber: as many (most?) of your sources are offline, I can't easily check what they actually say, but just to make the general point that it's not enough for a source to be reliable and independent, it must also provide significant coverage directly of the subject.
The V&A is a primary source, and in any case doesn't seem to provide any actual coverage of this band, merely cataloguing their Glasto appearances.
All this matters if you're trying to demonstrate notability via the general WP:GNG route, which relies entirely on sources.
The other option would be to consider whether this band might be notable per WP:BAND. I suggest you study that guideline, and see if you can provide evidence that at least one of the 12 criteria is met, clearly and objectively.
Remember also that we need to know where the information in this draft is coming from, so that it can be verified. As a bare minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation supporting it, and any potentially contentious statements need their own citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.I appreciate you taking the time to review the draft. I thought that the newspaper / Journal sources were enough in themselves, I have all the origin quotes, but I haven't got online verification for them all. Does that mean they can't be used ? I will edit the draft and I will try the WP.Band route as you suggested. Thanks again for your help. Ceri Aber (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceri Aber: RE "I haven't got online verification for them all. Does that mean they can't be used ?" – no, offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. requirements. When citing offline sources, you need to include full bibliographical information to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification. It would also be great if you could provide a short quotation which supports the statement being made. See WP:OFFLINE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceri Aber: To help clarify what DoubleGrazing says, offline cites require a minimum amount of bibliographical information for a cite. For magazines, we need: publication name, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and page(s) the article is on. For books, we need: Title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I am going to rewrite the article with the emphasis on getting the citations correct. I see what you mean about the information regarding off line cites.
Thanks again Ceri Aber (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ceri Aber. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what indepedent reliable sources say about a subject.
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If your "origin quotes" are all from the band themselves, then they don't help. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am beginning to understand what you mean by reliable sources. I will rewrite the article using only independent sources.
Thanks you have been very helpful. Ceri Aber (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 23 October 2024 review of submission by MrsFeathers

Hi! I would like to know the reason this page was declined so i can help make it better! MrsFeathers (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrsFeathers. Welcome to Wikipedia. Your draft is to be deleted due to it only existing to promote Furry Refuge which is prohibited on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia only hosts articles on notable topics: in this case you would have to prove Furry Refuge meets our Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. You would do this by finding significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources such as mainstream media.
If those sources do not exist then I am afraid no article can exist.
Let me know if you have any further questions. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! that was very helpful! MrsFeathers (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 23 October 2024 review of submission by Rustacian

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission and for providing feedback on the draft.

I based the structure and content of the article on existing Wikipedia entries for similar open-source mail server software such as Dovecot, Apache James, and Courier Mail Server. These articles do not seem to include references to multiple published sources either, and rely largely on official product documentation, which is quite common for technical software entries. Given that Stalwart Mail Server is also software, I followed a similar approach by referencing its official documentation and other publicly accessible repositories. I believe the current draft offers more depth and detail, especially in comparison to the other mail server entries mentioned.

Regarding the requirement for independent sources, I would like to clarify that I am a user of this software but do not participate in its development. I created the draft to contribute to the open-source community because I noticed that Stalwart Mail Server is already listed on the List of mail servers Wikipedia page, but it lacks a dedicated entry. I hoped that this article could fill that gap.

I would be grateful if you could provide additional guidance on how I can improve the article to meet the requirements for publication, particularly regarding independent and reliable sources.

Once again, thank you for your time and consideration. Rustacian (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rustacian: modelling your draft on existing articles is, while a perfectly understandable thing to do, not a good idea. Those articles may well have their own problems, which you won't want to replicate. Instead, you need to ensure that your draft complies with the currently prevailing policies and guidelines. The notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. If such sources don't exist, then it won't be possible to have an article published on this subject, regardless of whether other articles exist which may fail the same guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing. Thanks for clarifying, those other articles were indeed created many years ago, probably before the Wikipedia notability guidelines started being enforced. I will look for other independent sources. Thanks again. Rustacian (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have tagged the three articles you mentioned as demonstrating insufficient evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rustacian, we have 6.9 million articles, many of which should either be deleted or dramatically improved. Do not model a draft on articles that are unassessed or stub class or start class. That's analogous to a student copying the work of another student who is failing the course. Instead, model Good articles and Featured articles that have gone through a serious peer review process. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 23 October 2024 review of submission by Ashish982387

tell me issue 

Ashish982387 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashish982387: the issue is, as stated in the decline notice, that there is no evidence the subject is notable; the draft cites three sources, none of which is considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashish982387: We can't use IMDb or social media (no editorial oversight). We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous fact-checking and other editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 23 October 2024 review of submission by Holgerj9

Hello, I've tried getting this article published for a little bit now. I understand that it's been rejected because the sources don't adhere to the community guidelines. Is it all of the sources, or just a certain percentage of them? Also, sorry for making this a two-part question, if it is the majority of the sources, would deleting those sources and the parts of the article they support help this article get published? Thank you in advance for your time and help! Holgerj9 (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Holger - Looking through the sources in the article, the only ones that stand out as obviously not usable to me are the Huffpost article and the Harvard Kennedy School article, because those are not independent of the subject. The TechCrunch articles are borderline but I would veer towards them not being usable because TechCrunch has a tendency to overly rely on company statements and not do original research. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 23 October 2024 review of submission by Questfeather

Let me know what other edits I need to do before resubmitting this article. Thank you! Questfeather (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Questfeather: Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that explicitly corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 24

12:20, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Fosterjr

Hello I used to have a page which was deleted as somebody kept changing information on it that wasn't correct. I am trying to re-upload a page but no matter what I do it cannot be included. Could you please advise? Could I request that the deleted page is perhaps re-submitted without the wrong material included? I probably should have requested this the first time but I am relatively new to wikipedia and wasn't sure what to do the first time I requested my page be deleted. thank you Fosterjr (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you do not meet the notability criteria, which is why your draft was rejected. Even if you hadn't asked for the first effort to be deleted, it may very well have been anyway. That (and your new attempt) didn't address the concerns of reviewers.
Your initial concerns are still an issue- if an article about you exists, others can put incorrect information on it, even if only temporarily. See WP:PROUD as to why an article about yourself isn't necessarily desirable. My advice is that you focus your efforts on social media where you can indeed own and control the content you post. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Amrsoliman1966

I have submitted links to interviews and the most recent award Ed Sousa has recieved. I am not sure how much more information is required to validate hi notoriaty? Amrsoliman1966 (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrsoliman1966 It's "notability", not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). Interviews are useless for establishing notability, as that is not an independent reliable source, it is the person speaking about themselves. This draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Daisy.totomm

Hi! I wanted to list an increasingly used coastal ocean model that already covers most of the market in some countries. The entry was rejected because of 'All sources are primary.' 0. I guess ArXiv preprints don’t count(?) 1. How about conference papers and proceedings? 2. Do conference papers have to be peer-reviewed? 3. Do they have to be from reputable sources, like AIMS for math? 4. Do journal papers need to be WoS tracked? Do they have to have an impact factor? 5. What about technical reports (the most common format for commercial models)? I’m looking to figure out what will qualify as secondary sources as blogs and forum posts obviously won’t. 6. Oh, and will secondary sources be disqualified if author collaborated with the primary source prior in some papers? E.g. F1000 has such rule. Daisy.totomm (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daisy.totomm: someone will hopefully come along soon who can answer your questions more specifically, but in general terms, sources should at least be independent of the subject, as a bare minimum; now nearly all your sources are papers (co-)authored by the developer himself. We have very little interest in what the developer says about this software, we mainly want to know what third parties say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what DoubleGrazing says is correct. If a concept has not been discussed in independent and secondary sources, there can't be a Wikipedia article about it. All the sources in the draft are publications where Lawen is the main or co-author, with the exception of the project's own website and a university website which isn't actually a source – it follows the sentence about Lawen developing the model while he was at Texas A&M University, but the linked webpage doesn't mention Wavedyne so it doesn't verify that information. --bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Bronson Fotiadis1

The article submitted was decline for reasons of inadequate citations. The article contains over 70 in-line citations listing the author, date, or direct link to the source listed below. This includes sources from the National Park Service on information such as Fort Jefferson or the official NOAA website on the effects of Hurricane Wilma on Key West in 2005. Any further information as to how the article does not meet the requirements for adequate and verifiable sources would be greatly appreciated. Bronson Fotiadis1 (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask the reviewer Courtesy ping: AlphaBetaGamma? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was really leaning on accepting due to how well written it is, but I kinda got stuck on "The Port's cruise ship dock was originally opened in 1984 in Mallory Square and was met with disapproval by citizens that it would disrupt sunset watching on the square. In 2021, the Florida State Legislature overturned the amendments.In March 2024, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis approved renovation plans for Pier B, a project in which to service larger ships in the harbor." and "Key West's Wrecking industry contributed the island's wealthiest periods throughout much of the 19th century. Shipwrecks became a common occurrence in the Florida Keys with vessels from the Old World running aground in the regions shallow reefs. Indigenous Natives in Key West were often employed to salvage cargo from wrecked merchant vessels during the early 17th century, including a major salvaging by Natives of the Spanish Fleet wrecked off of the Marquesas Keys in 1622.". Not sure if I am being an idiot and forgetting a policy here, but 2 paragraphs worth of no inline citations kinda stopped me, only because the author seems to know how to use sfns and has seems to have sourced every book-supported citations already, so I assumed it wasn't the "There is a book reference in the reference section but there's no inline footnote" situation. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:34, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Amrsoliman1966

Is there a possibility to obtain the deleted information to create a new page? Amrsoliman1966 (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amrsoliman1966: if you go to Draft:Ed Sousa, you can see the name of the admin who deleted this; you can ask them if they would return the contents to you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Allied Panzer

I do not know where to find sources online. If I could get tips on where to find reliable sources that would be amazing. Allied Panzer (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allied Panzer: Try your local library? We also accept offline sources, if cited properly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Mitolivia

Dear Team, I'd like to request some more feedback regarding why the sources are not reliable enough. Susan is well-known in her industry, her peers appear in wikipedia.

This page [1] declares Forbes as a reliable source which was used among the references. However, I did find 2 sources that are considered not reliable, I'll remove them.

"Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [...] magazines, journals, and news coverage (not opinions) from mainstream newspapers." - there are Hungarian references that are higher quality online magazines as well as a reputable university.

Can you please provide more assistance? Thank you in advance! Mitolivia (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been asked to respond to the claim that you have a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:58, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Boudrege

Hello,

I would like to know why the sources weren't liable? Was the band camp reference the reason behind the rejection?

Thank you, Geneviève Boudreau Boudrege (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Boudrege: In part, yes. We don't cite Bandcamp or Setlist.fm (streaming service/online storefront). We also don't cite their own music label (connexion to subject). Pitchfork is generally seen as a good source, however. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that this band as been apart of the underground hip hop scenes for well over 5 years now.They're not a "thing" that was made up one day, they have audience from all over the world. Boudrege (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Boudrege, you replied to the wrong question - my comment about MADEUP was in regards to another submission. I have moved your comments to the correct section. Qcne (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you, I will make some changes and resubmit. I appreciate you taking the time to revise the article. Boudrege (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 24 October 2024 review of submission by 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577

I instructed ChatGPT to create a language and decided to tell the world about it. I understand that some of the information may be false. I will have you know that I am simply telling you what ChatGPT told me. I can revise the article.

Best regards, 

                     Wikipedia User 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have let you make the page if I were in charge. It sounds interesting. I'd like to see it. 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rejected the article as we disallow things that were made up one day. Please also don't post comments pretending to be un-affiliated users. Qcne (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do we not accept text generated by ChatGPT or other large language models, we don't accept novel concepts or research. We are an encyclopaedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I apologize for any trouble caused. 2603:6080:BE00:6783:481A:CFE8:E20B:577 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:40, 24 October 2024 review of submission by RigbyNicholson

I have requested this page to be uploaded three times, but every time I am struck down by people saying I have unreliable sources. What sourced have I cited that are unreliable, in this article, thanks, Rigby. RigbyNicholson (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners. Entire sections are unsourced, or at least lack inline citations. The sentence encouraging readers to visit the school website should be removed,.external links aren't displayed that way. 331dot (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, you could make the problems of referencing and passing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES a bit less daunting if the draft was written in a much more focused manner. Right now, more of the article is devoted to a previous school that relocated and a biography of the person the school was named for than the actual school itself. And what there is of the school is filled with lots of random details that aren't really encyclopedic; I'm not sure the policy of sixth grader sport participation is really something for here. If you think you can demonstrate notability, find sources that are independent and talk about the school, not the previous school or Charles Owen. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:13, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

Some how I want to get this on Wiki Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what sources you're trying to cite in the draft, because all references are malformed bare urls, which a lot of editors here hate for a good reason. Additionally, the draft has a major issue with promotional tones, which is also unacceptable. Your draft has already been rejected 3 months ago, so if you want to resubmit it after you do a complete overhaul of the draft, you can launch a discussion with the rejecting reviewer to appeal the rejection. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 22:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 24 October 2024 review of submission by Kiyume1990

Yes Kiyume1990 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop wasting reviewers' time with empty drafts. A blank page will never be considered. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 25

02:03, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Mandi News

why is'nt my Article Altaf_Ahmad_Ranjha published for public as i cant find it while searching it on internet mediums. Mandi News (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandi News: Google caches its search results. Even assuming the page is indexed immediately it takes time for Google's crawlers to find it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News There is an arbitrary delay to seek to avoid search engines indexing any article that has been published in error. Search engines to not choose to index every article anyway. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE TRY TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE SO IT CAN BE PUBLISHED WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT Mandi News (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your hurry? This is an encyclopaedia for all time, not just for 2024. There is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for inconvienent take your time i just asked as i wasnt fimiliar with the method and was intriguied Mandi News (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:53, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Carl 1131

My draft on sagique was declined and I would like to know some ways to improve it. Thank you Carl 1131 (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carl 1131: Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable sources that are independent and secondary have already said about it. Where did you find the information about sagique? There are no sources at all in the draft that mention the term or concept. The only two sources are dictionary entries with definitions of other words. The decline notice also contains important information. --bonadea contributions talk 06:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Syed hameed hussain.S

Hello, I need help resolving an issue with my article draft that was declined due to insufficient independent and reliable sources. Could you assist me in improving the draft so it can meet Wikipedia's notability standards? Here is the link to my sandbox: Syed hameed hussain.S/sandbox. I appreciate any guidance you can provide to help get my article published. Thank you! Syed hameed hussain.S (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no indication that she meets the definition of a notable person. You say she is "known for her expertise" but have no sources to support that statement or even tell who claims she is known for that. The only other thing you do is describe her background and qualifications, nothing about how she is notable. One of the sources you give is an interview, which is just her speaking about herself, that's not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Jacky2024

Hello,

I’m seeking assistance on how to improve my draft for Draft:BankSathi , which was recently declined. The feedback mentioned issues regarding a promotional tone and insufficient independent sources.

I’ve already made some adjustments to address these concerns by:

Rewriting the content to adopt a more neutral, encyclopedic tone. Ensuring that I cite reliable, third-party sources to meet notability requirements. Could someone provide guidance on any additional changes that would make the article align better with Wikipedia's standards? Specifically, I’m looking for tips on sourcing and tone improvements that will satisfy notability and verifiability criteria.

Thank you for your help!

Best regards, Jacky2024 Jacky2024 (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky2024 Are you associated with this company in any manner?
The draft reads like text that might appear on its website. Language like "BankSathi was established on January 15, 2020, with the goal of providing accessible financial solutions, particularly in Tier II and Tier III cities across India" is promotional(see WP:SOLUTIONS, "solutions" is just marketing puffery) and unclear(what is a "Tier II" city?). You just discuss the offerings and business activities of the bank; instead, you should be summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331dot,
Thank you for your detailed feedback. I am not affiliated with BankSathi; my goal is to create an informative, objective entry. I see now that some of the language may come across as promotional, and I’ll revise it to be more neutral, removing terms like "solutions" and clarifying unfamiliar phrases such as "Tier II cities."
I'll also focus on restructuring the draft based on what reliable, independent sources have stated about BankSathi to better demonstrate its notability per Wikipedia guidelines. If you have specific suggestions on how I might further align the draft with Wikipedia's standards, I’d appreciate it. Thanks again for your help.
Best,
User:Jacky2024 Jacky2024 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacky2024: you say you're not affiliated with this business, but in response to the COI query on your talk page, you said "To address the concern, I’ll refrain from directly editing the Draft:BankSathi article. Instead, I’ll propose any suggested edits on the talk page and make sure to provide reliable, third-party sources to support them. I will also disclose my connection to the topic on the talk page as per Wikipedia’s guidelines to ensure transparency." Yet, no such disclosure has been made on the draft talk page. Can you clarify what's going on, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you for your message and for pointing this out. I understand the importance of maintaining transparency regarding any potential conflicts of interest. I want to clarify that while I am not directly affiliated with BankSathi, I realize that my previous response may have caused confusion regarding my intentions.
I appreciate the reminder about disclosing connections, and I will make sure to properly disclose any relevant information on the draft's talk page. My aim is to contribute constructively and to adhere to Wikipedia’s guidelines. I apologize for any oversight on my part, and I will rectify this immediately.
If you have any further suggestions or specific aspects you think I should address in my disclosure, please let me know. Thank you for your understanding. Jacky2024 (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't pick this bank at random to edit about- your first edit to the draft had very difficult formatting, and you claim to be from the area where this bank is headquartered. If you are associated with this bank in any manner, now is the time to say so. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Thank you for your message and for expressing your concerns. I want to clarify that while I am familiar with the region where BankSathi is headquartered, I do not have any formal affiliation with the company. My intention in editing the draft was purely to contribute to an informative entry based on the available information.
I understand the importance of transparency and the guidelines surrounding conflicts of interest. If my editing history or formatting has raised any doubts about my neutrality, I apologize for that. I will ensure to be more clear in my future contributions.
Please let me know if you have any specific questions or suggestions about the article, as I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s standards.
Thank you for your understanding. Jacky2024 (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacky2024 This doesn't answer why you claimed to have a connection to the bank previously and now claim that you don't. You're also being very careful with your language- "formal affiliation", "not directly affiliated"; please tell now what the nature is of your connection with BankSathi, whatever it may be, no matter how small. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacky2024: are you using AI to generate your answers? If so, please don't. We want to hear what you, and not some algorithm, have to say.
Please describe in your own words your relationship with this business. When you registered your account recently, you added a bit of blurb on your user page, and as your 2nd edit dropped a fully-fledged draft on this bank. There's presumably a reason for that – what is it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Persianwine

Hi dear. What is the reason for rejecting this article? Persianwine (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Persianwine: the draft is insufficiently referenced, with a single source cited twice, leaving most of the content unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:14, 25 October 2024 review of submission by 37.39.165.89

Hello this is a company page and want to know what can i do to make it be published. Thank you 37.39.165.89 (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "company pages" here, we have articles about companies that meet our criteria. Your draft has been deleted. If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 25 October 2024 review of submission by 124.40.245.74

Because there is nothing wrong i did. This biography is very important and people are searching Satvik C S 

124.40.245.74 (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't ask a question, but just to say that this draft has been deleted as overtly promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:31, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Combat marto

How can the page be published? Combat marto (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Combat marto: it cannot, since it has been rejected; the draft presents no evidence of notability, or even any credible suggestion thereof. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:32, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Absolutiva

I expanded some notable names about youngest fathers and mothers in this list, as a compliant with WP:BLPNAME, unless if there is a commentary. Both previous list articles deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers. Absolutiva (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that AfD discussion tells you why this draft should not be accepted. I have blanked it, as it contained multiple WP:BLP violations. I have no idea what you mean by as a compliant with WP:BLPNAME, unless if there is a commentary. The list was most certainly not compliant with WP:BLPNAME. --bonadea contributions talk 13:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even List of oldest fathers and Pregnancy over age 50 as well? Absolutiva (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are not under discussion here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea: I'd nominated both for deletion. Absolutiva (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Goldprism22

why is the edit denied what part of tos does it compromise? Goldprism22 (talk) 13:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldprism22: Take a look at What Wikipedia is not. --bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:54, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Mandi News

Why isnt article Chaudhry_Ikramullah_Ranjha been displayed on the main page as we search it through internet mediums as only user talk page is shown and not the offical article Mandi News (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandi News: this draft was only accepted a moment ago. It will become visible to search engines once it has been reviewed by New Page Patrol, or after 90 days have passed, whichever comes sooner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News Wikipedia has no control over how search engines index our articles. Please read Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing. Qcne (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News: Please do not start another thread just because you don't like the answer you were given; I gave another explanation as to why search engines haven't indexed it above; that still applies alongside DoubleGrazing and Qcne's explanations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandi News: We don't do "official" articles. What is your connexion to Ranjha? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Sysdevuk

It's unclear what's wrong with this article. I don't see any major difference from this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMDE Any practical help with will be appreciated. Thank you. Sysdevuk (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sysdevuk: this draft cites only close primary sources, plus one Reddit thread (= non-reliable source); in other words, zero indication of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You clearly have a conflict of interest (COI) in this subject, judging by your user name. I've posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've clearly decrared COI before publishing this articale, however I've tried to be objective. I've added some additional sources for your reference (it is any better?) [btw: in case of Reddit it 'wiki-like' post, not a 'general discussion'; and it is not from an associated person].
May I know how 'paid edition' works? (last time I edited something for Wikipedia near 10 years ago) Sysdevuk (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sysdevuk: where and how did you disclose your COI? I couldn't find this anywhere, but perhaps I'm overlooking something. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:25, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Skibidiukuser

hello I'm new to this and I'm writing for our large 20,000 discord community that experienced a raid. Do I need to include references for every fact I claim? What is the minimum I need to include to get this published, I have read articles but appreciate a more concise and direct advice. thank you Skibidiukuser (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skibidiukuser The "United Kingdom Discord Raid 2024" does not merit an article in this encyclopaedia, and so this draft will not be considered further, sorry. Qcne (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
am I not able to edit my draft until it reaches the requirements? Skibidiukuser (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It won't ever reach the requirements, @Skibidiukuser, sorry. Qcne (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skibidiukuser: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skibidiukuser: To answer the questions Qcne and DoubleGrazing skipped over, we would need third-party reliable sources that discuss this in depth for us to even consider having an article. Your draft is wholly unsourced, and the reason Qc and DG are both saying it won't be considered further is because it's highly unlikely tech news publications would cover what appears to be a routine sort of phishing, especially within 24h after it happened. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Magnusmuldoon

I wanted to get a further detailed explanation of why my article was rejected. I revised and was still told that the references I used do not allow the article to qualify as a Wikipedia article. The sources I used prove that the fighters I listed who boxed with Rival gloves actually wore the Rival branded gloves in their fights. I also provided a source to verify the Rival background information. What else do I need to provide? Thank you. Magnusmuldoon (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnusmuldoon: your draft (not yet 'article') was declined (not 'rejected') because it is insufficiently referenced, and does not demonstrate notability, as detailed in the decline notice. Whether some fighters wore gloves from this brand has nothing to do with notability. You need to show that the subject satisfies the WP:GNG notability guideline, which it currently does not appear to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Woller

How can I transfer the article from Wikipedia in Germany (see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Textbook_of_Hand_Surgery) to en.wikipedia? I just have to translate the leading text, anthing else is already in English. Can anyone help me? Woller (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Woller: the simple answer is, just copy & paste it (and remember to attribute the source).
The slightly more complex option is to request an WP:IMPORT. (Whether that's possible in this case, and how it works, I've no idea as I've never attempted that.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Fabdal

Hi, what do i have to do to get a biographical page posted for Samer Bishay? Fabdal (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabdal Please study HELP:YFA. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Dozertank

Hi, i'd like some assistance in my article as i don't understand how my references (SVT, GAFFA etc) aren't reliable sources?

Kind Regards, Dozertank (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft fails WP:NSINGER and is not written in an encyclopaedic tone. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dozertank: The SVT source is probably fine, but more sources of that quality are necessary (I can't access the GAFFA article, but even if that's good it still isn't quite sufficient). And although SVT is certainly a reliable source, it looks like the programme is at least partly an interview (I haven't watched the whole thing) and that means it isn't secondary. Importantly, all biographical information needs a source. And finally, the Spotify links can't be used as sources at all, I'm afraid. --bonadea contributions talk 16:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you or the help! I've added more sources now such as the booking agent Sustainable Punk, the individual venue pages for the tour etc.. Should i remove the spotify links completely?
Kind Regards, Dozertank (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Fabdal

Hi, how do I get a biographical page posted? there are literally thousands of these on wikipedia. Fabdal (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have biographical articles about people that meet our criteria, but we don't have promotional articles that merely document activities and qualifications. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Samer has been covered in the media and I've cited many articles in the page. I believe meets the criteria listed. Fabdal (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the draft lacked sources, in addition to what I said above. You wrote things like "His work with Ice Wireless and Iristel has been instrumental" but don't say how he was instrumental.
What are the three(and only three) best sources you have? 331dot (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 25 October 2024 review of submission by Dorian Marian Neagu

I need help to make this topic notable. check the information and data about the topic and then tell me what I need to change to make the article safe, notable and perfect for Wikipedia. Dorian Marian Neagu (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, the subject must be notable before there is an attempt to make an article for it. What would be the three best sources that establish the subject's notability? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 26

03:05, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Ernestina1844

I cannot find Edit tab at top of window to reedit the text of my article. Ernestina1844 (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ernestina1844, this question isn't really suitable for this help desk. Have you tried turning your computer (or whatever device you use) off and on? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:54, 26 October 2024 review of submission by 103.161.144.33

Its for the third time the article gets rejected. Can some one say which sources are not reliable? 103.161.144.33 (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
The Times of India has dubious reliability(see WP:TOI). The main issue is that you have no sources that establish the film is a notable film as defined by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 26 October 2024 review of submission by 100.8.233.48

a 10 y old kid has open 2 company! 100.8.233.48 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When independent reliable sources that you can cite write about that and its significance, let us know. 331dot (talk) 12:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your latest post. Please don't spam the help desk. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, we err towards not having articles on minors if we can help it as a Wikipedia article would irrevocably destroy their privacy. The sourcing would need to be absolutely flawless for us to even consider an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:07, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Witzcraft1

why is this not approved? Witzcraft1 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Witzcraft1: because it is completely unreferenced, with no evidence that the subject is notable.
I assume this is about yourself? In which case, please note that autobiographies are very strongly discouraged; see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:16, 26 October 2024 review of submission by Dancematters

this page has now been deleted???? Dancematters (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dancematters: correct, Draft:Billy Cowie was deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this was not promotional Dancematters (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dancematters: I can't comment, as I haven't seen the content; only explaining what happened. The reviewer clearly felt it was promotional, and the attending administrator concurred and consequently deleted it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to increase the woeful lack of choreographers on wikipedia and had planned a whole series on major figures who are not represented. the page in its second form was completely neutral and only relied on third party sources (over thirty) my suspicion is that wikipedia editors and administrators have no experience of dance and its importance. I would be grateful if you could request to see the page and give a second opinion. Dancematters (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1253550054"