Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


October 15

[edit]

08:59, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Anastasia (Nastia)

[edit]

Hi everyone, could you please let me know why this draft was declined?

I removed anything that is remotely promotional and added several independent and reliable sources that mention OnePageCRM. Forbes and Forbes Advisor covered OnePageCRM as well as The Irish Independent, The Times, Local Enterprise Ireland Office, and also TechCrunch.

Some of them are globally known (Forbes and TechCrunch). Others are well known and established in Ireland, like Chambers Ireland, the federation of chambers of commerce for the Republic of Ireland, that officially endorsed OnePageCRM on their website.

Pipedrive has a similar number of references - Pipedrive

Another Wiki article has no reputable references but is still published - Really Simple Systems

Could you please let me know how I can improve the draft to get it published? I'd appreciate your feedback. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastasia (Nastia): the reviewer declined this because of insufficient evidence of notability.
Forbes and TechCrunch aren't quite the strong sources you seem to think; see WP:FORBESCON and WP:TECHCRUNCH, respectively. Sources such as Local Enterprise Ireland and chambers of commerce are primary, and do not contribute towards notability.
It's also not sufficient for a source to mention the subject, we need to see significant coverage, and more specifically, coverage that is entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia (Nastia) When linking to another article or page on Wikipedia, the whole url is unnecessary. Simply place the title of the target page in double brackets(like [[Article title]]).
You declared you were an employee in an edit summary; you should do this on your user page as well.
Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate articles can get past us, that an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone, or that standards have not changed since it was(if it was). This is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, so things get past us. We can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, this is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have indeed received community vetting. I've marked the articles you pointed out as problematic, thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot and @DoubleGrazing for your quick responses and help.
I didn't know that articles can be published without approval, so will refer to the link provided to edit my draft. I declared that I was an employee on the Draft's Talk page too but will do this on my User page as well.
@DoubleGrazing- thanks for sharing the links to Forbes and TechCrunch. I'll have a look at what generally reliable sources have covered OnePageCRM and will add new references before re-submitting the draft. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 15 October 2024 review of submission by CadenSilva

[edit]

Why is my sources not reliable? I keep getting this: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

How can I make my sources more reliable so that my article gets approved?

Someone please help, many of my sources are credible. CadenSilva (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CadenSilva I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended.
Your draft is improperly formatted; please see Referencing for beginners. The draft is also written as an essay, and not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the topic.
If you are associated with this fund, please declare that, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Jenmchole

[edit]

Hi -- I have been working on a submission about BlackSky for a few months now and haven't been able to figure out how to change it so it will be accepted. This is my first attempt at writing an article, but like the first editor of this article, I noted that the text about BlackSky in the Spaceflight Industries article is out of date and that there was a proposal on the talk page of that article for an article about BlackSky. I have done some writing work in the past in the satellite space (mostly about Maxar) so tried to fill this gap. I have used the same kinds of sources from comparable articles (Maxar, Planet, AirBus, etc) so I'm not sure why those articles work but this one does not?? Please help! I'm happy for this to be edited in any way (shortened or changed) but it seems like if comic book characters get a wiki entry then a company that can watch the world from space should at least have a mention!! Thanks so much for any help!! Jenmchole (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to this company?
As reviewers noted, the draft just summarizes the routine activities of the company and its offerings, not significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources thqt shows how it is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not employed by this company but have done freelance writing/editing about multiple companies in this sector.
Is the text currently under the heading "Satellites" not notable? They built and launched satellites into space. I'm having trouble understanding what notable means?? I looked at the published Stardew Valley article and it's notable references (The Stardew Valley Developer Blog or Nintendo Life) and its not clear why NASA, Forbes and SpaceNews don't work as independent, reliable sources? I'm not tied to any of this info being included, I'm happy to adjust -- it just feels very unclear when comparing to the other articles I've edited or read what's missing from this one. Thanks very much. Jenmchole (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenmchole Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits.
So, to be clear, you are not freelancing about this company? If you have freelanced for their competitors, it could still be a conflict of interest you need to disclose. If not, okay.
The "satellites" section just documents their routine business activities(building/launching satellites). It doesn't say what is important/significant/influential about this company doing so- what makes them a notable company as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 15 October 2024 review of submission by SweLiving

[edit]

Clarification on Source Reliability Hi, my article was declined: Draft:Per Olsson (photographer) The reason given was "not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I’m not sure which of the sources I used are considered unreliable. Could it be due to the fact that "Fotografisk Tidsskrift" is cited with a URL from sfoto.se, or is mynewsdesk not an adequate source?

Additionally, I have these other sources I could use for the article:

- [Magasinet Tryck](https://issuu.com/magasinettryck/docs/magasinet-tryck-nr-4)

- [Racestripe Magazine](https://se.readly.com/magazines/racestripe-magazine-readly-exclusive/2023-12-27?srsltid=AfmBOooADLP6XEf_2WpEtTOpShoEDRC94wkEkVvEFEkxw7o4NwJmfCPN)

Do these seem more reliable? Any thoughts on how I can improve the sources or references for this draft would be appreciated! SweLiving (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweLiving: almost all the citations are to the first source, which is an interview of him. People can, and do, say what they want in an interview. These sources also do not establish notability, which would have been another reason to decline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SweLiving I fixed your post so the link to your draft is in the correct place, I think you thought it was a section header. Also, the whole url is unnecessary when linking to a Wikipedia page. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SweLiving: "not adequately supported by reliable sources" is generally used when the subject is a living person and there are unsourced claims in the article. Literally everything that could be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that explicitly corroborates it; interviews are not third-party. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by HYTEN CREW

[edit]

A new page SNEAKO has gotten through the cracks and it is worse than the draft. I think the draft article qualifies to be an article since he has been the dedicated subject of an article from a major accredited newspaper and has been mentioned countless times in more tabloid journalism (which is par for the course for these influencer types). HYTEN CREW (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HYTEN CREW: Thanks for letting us know about the article. I'm going to see if it's salvageable in any form before sending it to a deletion debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW: As to this draft, it has the exact same problem as the existing article, sourcing aside - it's an article on a living person known for being a gadfly for shock value, which makes sourcing next to impossible. All I really found online was clickbait (mainly from Sportskeeda). The sourcing you have in the article does not help a whit, as you rely a lot on sources that either are from him or don't even mention him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I'd like to say it's not my article, I haven't contributed to it at all, and I really couldn't care less if it lives or dies. I'm just bringing it up for discussion in light of the duplicate article's creation so any tomfoolery can be nipped in the bud.
Second, is the problem lack of notability or lack of sources? There's the source from the Jerusalem Post and a simple search on the google has articles from SPLC and others.
Third, the subject is an influencer and runs in the cirlce of the manosphere with the Andrew Tate's and the Nick Fuentes's. I think it's important to document hatred so that an audience can identify these bad actors and hold them accountable. HYTEN CREW (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW: With all due respect, that goal is not shared by Wikipedia. Information is not the sort of weapon you imagine it is for this purpose; a Wikipedia article could just as easily find him potential new fans. Second, I view the issue as both dodgy sources (chaff choking out the wheat) and being notable only for being a manosphere Socrates (though the AfD has turned up four good sources to use, two of which you already cite). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW We record only that whcih is said in reliable secondary sources. Wikip4dia documents nothing unless it is already recorded 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Toblerone101

[edit]

What do I need to add Toblerone101 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101 A rejected draft cannot proceed further unless you can liaise with the rejecting editor to lift the rejection. It may be a matter of WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toblerone101 To be clear, I am not the rejecting reviewer. Petitioning me on my user talk page serves no purpose. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:47, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Natan Consigli

[edit]

I need help to make this article more neutral and formal of tone. I tried a few times but seem not to understand how to do it well. Help is much appreciated. Thanks! Natan Consigli (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Natan Consigli, some things that stand out:
- "recognized for his use of fire in creating artwork" < recognised by whom?
- "played a role in shaping his later explorations in visual arts, providing him with a foundation in imagery and composition that would.." < simplify this to something like "his career in advertising and graphic design influenced his compositional style and artistic development"
- "he produces vibrant, textured works" < who says they are vibrant and textured?
- "become emblematic of his style and has garnered widespread recognition" < says who?
- The entire "Legacy and Impact" section can be removed, as it is unencyclopedic. Qcne (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/
Hello (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natan Consigli (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "recognized for his use of fire in creating artwork"
Added reference here https://www.jamesmagazine.it/art/le-opere-enrico-dico-milano/ -> With recognition also by Vittorio Sgarbi (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Sgarbi)
and here https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cultura/dic-combustioni-pop-art-italiana-1446182.html
I attempted a correction on the rest of the sections
Thanks you for your answer. Let me know if there's something else I can improve Natan Consigli (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 15 October 2024 review of submission by LegacyMediahse

[edit]

I don't understand why Theroadislong rejected my post LegacyMediahse (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your draft twice because it is unsourced and promotional with zero indication of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:3177:B010:D2A9:8B9C:22AC:B7F2

[edit]

Were almost into 2025 and I felt like this is the Time 2600:1700:3177:B010:D2A9:8B9C:22AC:B7F2 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's far WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

[edit]

02:34, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Eddie.AMDBI

[edit]

My wiki page was deemed: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The company is the first local Malaysian multi level company self made company from 1992, that is similar to Amway (a global MLM brand). But this company has been around for 3 decades. why is it not notable for inclusion? Eddie.AMDBI (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kinda sounds like you never read the reviewer comments. Please take a look before coming back here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:19, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Wikiwookie543

[edit]

I don't really understand why my article was declined for not being neutral. I have just stated the facts. Can you explain? I also want to change my title to the long form of the organization (American Muslim & Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council (AMMWEC)), not just AMMWEC. How do I do this? Wikiwookie543 (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwookie543: this draft just tells us what the organisation does, by quoting or regurgitating content from their website, press releases, etc., which inevitably gives it a corporate jargony feel. In any case, we're not interested in that, we want to hear what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about them, and what makes them worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for that feedback. I have removed all press releases, and only kept the references to the website that I thought were absolutely necessary (their mission in their own words, their leaders). Please let me know if this works for you and your team. Wikiwookie543 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Renaming is done by moving the draft to a new title. However, you don't need to worry about it at this stage; if/when this draft is accepted, it will be moved to a new name anyway. I've made a note of your preferred title in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Wikiwookie543  Not done, technical issue. (Per below error message)
You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:
The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.
If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.
The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.
If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Sateesh584

[edit]

how to add my village in wikipedia Sateesh584 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sateesh584 You only provide one source, a YouTube video. YouTube is not an acceptable source unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. An article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. See Referencing for beginners as well. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Jn.mdel

[edit]

The original reviewer @TheLonelyPather declined the first draft for review in May 2024 - stating "contrary to purposes of wikipedia" and reasoned that "we already have Polarisation (waves)" article. Immediately then it was pointed out to reviewer that "Polarisation (waves)" article does not even talk of E and B modes of polarisation (infact even till today that article has nothing to do with it) - and so thereafter in response the reviewer took a stance - "Oh it seems from your references that this is about Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation - so add / update this there". In response again I pointed out that E and B modes is not only relevant for CMB but to other cosmic background radiations also - infact for gravitational waves too - and this had already been written in my original submission comments also (which no one read/ignored) that - "Adding article to explain E and B modes - especially relevant to CMB and gravitational waves study" - but still to no avail. Now after a gap, I again made the efforts to update the draft with as much information as possible - infact clarifying / adding as many references as were being asked of me daily by some of the original discussion participants - but despite my multiple messages even to the original reviewer to review and realise/accept the mistake as a genuine "good-faith" oversight and now make amends to remove the original decline, the original reviewer instead is just choosing to remain silent till date - it has been 10 days of multiple messages - no response / no communication. I fail to understand how some who have been given certain privileges on wikipedia - which are only meant for rendering service to wikipedia and its contributors (and not as a perk to sit on high throne) - how can someone ignore a contributor - especially when I have been consistently reiterating the original draft submission and adding more and more and more as an individual. Faulting a content can be understandable and discussed to resolve - but just because the reviewer does not wish to admit a mistake - that cannot be the reason for all the work to go down the drain. Hence, I write now to HELPDESK that this original incorrect decline may kindly be reviewed for revert - do a review of the content and then decide - because i know after all this groundwork that E and B modes is not explained on Wikipedia till now - and that has been my only humble submission from day one. Jn.mdel (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely wish you could have first read the above before suggesting "1st step".
Anyways see the original discussions in 1st step at : User talk:Jn.mdel#Your submission at Articles for creation: Polarization E and B modes (May 7)
See the 2nd attempt of 1st step at : [1]
And now see the 3rd attempt of the 1st step at : User talk:Jn.mdel#Concern regarding Draft:Polarization E and B modes
Maybe now you can appreciate the reasons for approaching helpdesk. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jn.mdel: if I understand correctly, you are asking us to revert the rejection of this draft. There is no need for this; your account is autoconfirmed, therefore you can publish the draft yourself, if you are determined to do so against the views of the three editors (two of whom are new page reviewers) with whom you have discussed this matter extensively on your talk page. New page patrol will then assess the article instead of us here at AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Nonoj36

[edit]

how can i improve my references? i need help Nonoj36 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need references that give this man significant coverage, that don't just document his activities, sources that discuss what makes him a notable person. Do sources write about unique business strategies he has created and others emulate? Any other particular influence in his field? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 16 October 2024 review of submission by The Politicians Page

[edit]

It's been frequently declining The Politicians Page (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to meet NPOLITICIAN, as he does not hold elected office and has not won election to public office. He's just a local party official. You would then need to show he meets the broader notable person definition, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
You seem to be associated with him, as you took a very professional looking image of him and he posed for you. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113

[edit]

The sources are notable.but,those are say that's not.which one is good for notable sources 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "notable source". There are sources which can demonstrate notability, but this draft does not cite any. Consequently, this has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You have zero usable sources. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/review sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and other forms of strict editorial control. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 2A06:F987:FFFF:2822:DED:3C9:BB63:A9DA

[edit]

Hi friends ! I got some message from you. Will you unblock me now ? 2A06:F987:FFFF:2822:DED:3C9:BB63:A9DA (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. Maybe, maybe not. But we can't even look at your case if you don't tell us what the accountname is that you were blocked under. And I've no idea what Slaviccommonwealth.com means in this context: it's neither a Wikipedia article, nor a Draft, nor a user account. ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 144.48.115.41

[edit]

a 144.48.115.41 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Pythonbrad

[edit]

I don't have enough references for this article. Pythonbrad (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean this topic does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Kaustubh42

[edit]

What is missing as we have added each thing now ? Kaustubh42 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "we", exactly? Tavantius (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Mfunderburk

[edit]

I recently was denied within a review of my page, Draft:Thriveworks. I agree with the previous editor, Bonadea's, assessment. I’ve made significant changes to ensure the draft is unbiased. I’ve reworded and removed content, particularly in the introduction, services, partnerships, and history sections, to address the concerns. I hope you agree with these changes and could confirm or deny if I have done so properly.

As a reminder, I have disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) in every edit summary and on my user page. I fully respect Wikipedia's guidelines, which is why I chose to go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.

I believe the updated draft now meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and neutrality. The sources are reliable, strictly independent, and provide in-depth coverage. Here are the three sources I feel best meet the criteria for WP in regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline:

https://medcitynews.com/2024/07/thriveworks-ophelia-team-up-for-mental-health-oud-support/

https://patch.com/illinois/joliet/thriveworks-partners-joliet-offer-mental-health-services

https://bhbusiness.com/2024/04/11/new-thriveworks-ceo-bullish-on-enterprise-agreements/


I believe the article now reads as an encyclopedic entry, not as a corporate listing, and is worthy of publication. Could you please review it again and let me know if you agree? If further adjustments are needed, I’d appreciate any additional guidance. Or if you think I am good to now resubmit, I would appreciate that heads up!

Thank you for your time, and stay safe! 

Mfunderburk (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you think you have addressed the problem, resubmit the draft: that is what submission is for. We don't do on-demand reviews on this page.
Though I will say that nothing in the draft leads me to think that this company is notable. I haven't looked at what the sources say about it though. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Durocel

[edit]

Hello, I'm writing about my draft about Slovak players that have played or play in American Hockey League. I wanted some tips what to do to get my arcticle public, I have been told that Eliteprospects cannot be used to prove the list meets notabillity guidelines. So what should I do more?

Thanks for answer and hope you have a great day! Yours sincirely, Durocel Durocel (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Maybe try more to show that the list will meet WP:NLIST? The current source works great for confirming nationality like the reviewer said. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

[edit]

I know that there will be articles talking about Little Z that I can use to source the page, however I have trouble finding them as the videos appear instead. What's a good way to find credible sources?

Also, what would be an acceptable YouTube source to article source ratio? Alpharad's page, as well as presumably many internet creator pages, contain mostly YouTube links in the References, but I added too many to the Little Z page apparently, so I was wondering a percentage that could be used? Mayor Orangutan (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube in general should not be used at all, so 0:inf. Of course, it is usable in LIMITED cases, like supporting a youtuber's subscriber count. (WP:ABOUTSELF). ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube subscriber counts, likes on a YT video and similar stats are actually not supposed to be sourced from the channel/video itself. Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability is an essay (not guideline/policy) but it discusses why that is the case. --bonadea contributions talk 10:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's all good, but a lot of articles do contain a high amount of YouTube sources. Alpharad's page has over 50% YouTube source links, and I know I'm not supposed to use the reason that other stuff exists, but the page was inspired by the Alpharad page, so this kind of threw me off. I think it's often acceptable to use YouTube sources, but I don't know that much about the system.
Also, about the whole finding credible sources thing, is there a sort of feature to find them? I know I read an article about Little Z getting engaged when it happened, but I can't find it when I search for it, and really can't find any articles about anything.
Thanks. Mayor Orangutan (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not yet addressed by a volunteer. If you'd like to identify these other articles, we can take action. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

[edit]

03:24, 17 October 2024 review of submission by Thisisyuvan

[edit]

These are notable sources for this article.but,those are said that's not notable.then,which one is good for notable works Thisisyuvan (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, meaning AfC reviewers will not consider accepting it further. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is good notable work sites Thisisyuvan (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your article contained A LOT OF unreliable sources. (Daily motion, WP:YOUTUBE WP:DISCOGS) I don't see reliable sources that contribute to establishing notability in the draft at all. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources are removed.then what I will do next.. Thisisyuvan (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please replace them with reliable sources. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google knowledge panel is reliable? 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113 (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thisisyuvan: this question was already asked and answered here yesterday, and judging by your style of writing, I'm guessing that was by you. Please don't ask the same question over and over, especially about a draft that has already been rejected and will not be considered further.
I'm also assuming from your user name that you are the subject of this draft. Please note that Wikipedia is not to be used for any sort of promotion, including self-promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 17 October 2024 review of submission by Natan Consigli

[edit]

Hello Is the draft of this wikipedia article neutral, formal and encyclopaedic as it should be? Let me know if there's anything else I could do to improve the article further. Thanks! Natan Consigli (talk) 09:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft for a review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 17 October 2024 review of submission by 77.77.218.177

[edit]

The Draft Will be moving into a Article. She able to ready and added sources per WP:SOURCED. 77.77.218.177 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review, it will be reviewed in due course. This could take time, so please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 17 October 2024 review of submission by 2601:184:497F:AEC0:C9AA:8A57:D20C:AD16

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia team, I am a bit confused about why this submission was declined. The article includes several peer-reviewed references which seem to adhere to Wikipedia's requirements and are very similar to the references listed for other bioinformatics software tools with Wikipedia pages. Could you please provide further guidance? 2601:184:497F:AEC0:C9AA:8A57:D20C:AD16 (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the download links and code repositories to the software; they're unhelpful. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Just resubmitted 69.173.97.221 (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 17 October 2024 review of submission by 213.194.150.111

[edit]

I tried to publish an article on Sagique but was denier because it's too much of a definition, and doesn't expand enough on the subject. Could you give me some suggestions on how to expand on it? 213.194.150.111 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post to link to your draft as intended(you need the "Draft:" portion). Remember to log in when posting. Unless you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this term, that discuss its use and history, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 17 October 2024 review of submission by Bluebox57

[edit]

I am requesting assistance because I am a volunteer with the Organization of Opera Orlando, and I have been trying to publish this article about three times. I am worried about editing my draft then submitting it for review only for it to get rejected again. I don't want this article to get deleted because of my incompetence. I thought I followed the advice of the previous reviewers, but it seems I am still getting the same answer, please help. Bluebox57 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a volunteer, you should declare a conflict of interest, see WP:COI for instructions. Drafts aren't deleted due to mere editing. Between your last two submissions, you removed content, but you didn't add reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like most people who trry to create an article without having spent significant time learning how Wikipedia works by editing, you appear to have created the article BACKWARDS.
First find sources that are reliably published, wholly indepedent of the company - not, for example, published by a university that the company collaborated with - and giving significant coverage to the company (not just to a person involved, or to a particular production). See WP:42 for the triple criteria that these sources must pass.
Then, if you have found at least three sources which meet those criteria, forget every single thing you know about the company, and write a summary of what those sources say. This is one of the reasons why creating an article is even more difficult if you have a COI. Not one single thing that you know about the company belongs in the article, unless you can find a reliable published source for it. (Uncontroversial factual information like dates and places may be taken from non-independent sources, as long as the bulk comes from independent sources.)
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 17 October 2024 review of submission by Hectorinaaa

[edit]

Can I add languages or is that only possible if the draft is accepted? Hectorinaaa (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by "add languages" you mean translate the draft for other language Wikipedias, you are free to do that; each language Wikipedia is a separate project. You'll need to make sure that the translation is acceptable for the Wikipedia version you are editing, each has different policies. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hectorina, your draft is about a child who lived about 420 years ago and who died at six years of age. What makes her notable other than her royal ancestry? Wouldn't it be best to cover her in the articles about her parents? Notability is not inherited. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Hectorinaaa. I'm guessing you mean, link it to related articles in other Wikipedias, such as no:Anna Maria Vasa and pl:Anna Maria Wazówna (polska królewna)? The answer is no, not until it becomes an article in mainspace. ColinFine (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No no, you know how on the top if you click the 3 languages, and it takes you to those sites. Hectorinaaa (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hectorinaaa: that is what ColinFine meant. Those links link published articles in different language versions of Wikipedia. A draft is not yet a published article. Therefore those links can only be added once (if) the draft is accepted for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thank you! Hectorinaaa (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 18

[edit]

03:05, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Coincollector4500

[edit]

I'm struggling as to why this is meeting the guidlines. This has dozens of reliable sources and is very independen from the orginal source. Can some kindly explain to me what the issue seems to be. Coincollector4500 (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coincollector4500: it does not have "dozens of sources", it has 14. This includes the company's own website, and that of its founder's. One source, New York Post, is not considered reliable. Three (Morningstar, Fox Business, and CBN) do not work. At least one is based on a press release. And a couple are about rare bills and coins, not about the company. This leaves a few, which may or may not count towards notability per WP:NCORP, but "dozens" they emphatically are not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coincollector4500, the quality of your sources is far more important than their quantity. For the purpose of establishing notability, it is essential that the sources be fully independent of the topic. Low quality and non-independent sources waste the time of reviewers and obscure rather than highlighting notability. Cullen328 (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in addition, Coincollector4500, there are multiple copies of at least one of the press releases, [2] and [3]. Surely it must be obvious that these are not different sources? --bonadea contributions talk 09:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadea, I think a lot of beginners see citations as a box-ticking exercise, rather than understanding that they are the foundation on which the very existence of an article depends. From that point of view, the identity of two sources will not be of any consequence. ColinFine (talk) 11:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:29, 18 October 2024 review of submission by TANVIR MAHMUD JIHAD

[edit]

Why the article isn't publicing ? TANVIR MAHMUD JIHAD (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TANVIR MAHMUD JIHAD: because there is nothing to suggest that you are notable enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia. Please note that this is not social media where you can create your own 'profile' and tell the world about yourself; for that, you need to find an alternative platform, like LinkedIn etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:26, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Bollardant

[edit]

Hello, I would like to know which references do not provide a good coverage, so I can target them, and replace them with more sources that provide a wider coverage. Thanks! Bollardant (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bollardant: I haven't checked the two offline sources, but most of the ones you're citing offer only passing mentions of the hippodrome in the wider context of the excavation. The book (#4) is obviously a solid source. Possibly also the paper (#6), although it's not clear what sort of paper it is, and in any case it's by the same author as the book, so arguably only counts as a single source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response! I’ll look into it. Bollardant (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

[edit]

according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) : Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.

Tromanale was a an event over a wide region. Visitors from Spain, France and even from the United States came especially for this events. For 2 years it was the officlal Counter Event to the Berlinale (international Filmfestival in Berlin) Tromaggot (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tromaggot: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask?
Also, just to say that an event doesn't have international "impact" just because it receives visitors from other countries. That would make pretty much any event notable. There was a violin recital in our village hall the other day, which had in the audience people from at least three other countries. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does the fact that the Tromanale was the official counter event to the Berlinale make it a notable event? Tromaggot (talk) 07:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tromaggot: in a word, no. Not in and of itself, at least: it may, however, generate sufficient media coverage, which in turn could make it notable (in the Wikipedia sense of that word). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article / reports in the "Berliner Zeitung", "TAZ", "Gory News", PRANKE-Magazin are not enough? How reports needs a festival? Tromaggot (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tromaggot: I'm not commenting on whether or not the sources cited in this draft are enough, as I haven't reviewed it. Note that it's not enough to cite a source, even a reliable and independent one; that source must also provide significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions.
But to answer your question in a general sense, we usually require 3+ sources that fully meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so I got this source from the Berliner Zeitung that provide significant coverage of the subject:
BERLINALE - Now the Berlinale also has its counter-event.
And the screendaily article.
So I just need to find a third one?
Was wrong with the Gory News Report? Gory News was a German magazin comparable to fangoria magazine? Is Gory News? Tromaggot (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Meghana348

[edit]

about meghnana 

Meghana348 (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meghana348 What help do you feel you need with respect to creating an article? Please stop opening multiple threads here. One is sufficient 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Bhuvan mg

[edit]

about college(VDH) Bhuvan mg (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhuvan mg What help do you feel you need with respect to creating an article? Please stop opening multiple threads here. One is sufficient 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Meghana348

[edit]

to publish about our clg Meghana348 (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meghana348 please do not open new threads. Please reply in the original thread you opened.
Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meghana348: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia isn't social media and we aren't interested in contextless/contentless "articles". —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Thewiko

[edit]

Can you give me some suggestion for better source articles than web-links about an obscure game?

Any response would be apreciated. Thewiko (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the game is "obscure", it almost certainly does not have the coverage needed to merit a Wikipedia article at this time. For video games usually sources include reviews of the game by professional reviewers(not just users of the game). 331dot (talk) 09:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By obscure i mean that It does have rewies by proffesional sites (like Metacritic and some more) and critics but it doesn't have much info that's 100% verifiable or in moderate depth, I think that it deserves an article because it has a sequel and decent player numbers, but that's subjective.
Again, any advice? Thewiko (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reputable game journalism websites that have covered the game in some detail is what we're looking for. Not MetaCritic, not from Slitherine (as they're the publisher so not independent), and not from Steam. Qcne (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If you have no sources with in depth coverage and the sources you have do not have in depth coverage, the game would not merit an article. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic, there has to be sources to support an article. Yes, player numbers contribute nothing towards notability- it could have five players and be notable, or five million and not be notable.
The draft currently doesn't have any discussion of reviews by professional reviewers; it mentions its Steam rating, but that is compiled by players rating the game, not professional reviewers. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh!
Understood then thanks for the replies and the advice.
Ill leave the draft as a draft for now, or until the sequel gets some atention or some reliable and proffesional rewies.
Again thank you for the replies. Thewiko (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:41, 18 October 2024 review of submission by 77.77.218.177

[edit]

Added Sources who was compteted in national pageantary! 77.77.218.177 (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a strong personal investment in this general topic. Are you associated with it? 331dot (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Caeid

[edit]

Hello, We want to submit a new draft for our page but there is no button for that, can you please help us in this regard. Caeid (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeid: there is no resubmit button, because after multiple declines this draft was finally rejected outright, therefore it will not be possible to resubmit it.
Who is "we" in your question? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for use by one individual only.
Or if you're referring to yourself and the creator of this draft, Qdacyme, as "we", then can you tell us how you're connected? I'm asking as Qdacyme has declared a conflict of interest in this subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Ombisen18

[edit]

Hi, I need help understanding why you rejected my page when I have written it from a neutral point of view. Also, the reference links are active and from well-known sources. What else do you need? Could you please assist me in making this page live? I am open to adding or removing any content you suggest. 

Ombisen18 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ombisen18: the draft is written in corporate buzz speak and peacockery throughout; I wouldn't call it 'neutral point of view'. And the sources do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. These are the reasons why it was declined (not 'rejected'). You may be able to resolve the latter issue, lack of notability, if you can find better sources. But if this is the most 'neutral' you can write, then you may not be able to get around that hurdle.
I would also suggest that you take a look at WP:REFB for advice on how to reference correctly using the preferred method of inline citations and dynamic footnotes. That makes it much easier for reviewers to see where each piece of information comes from, and how much of this remains unsupported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, Ombisen18, but consider these phrases that you wrote:
leveraging its deep industry knowledge to meet client needs across various sectors
and
was established to address the increasing demand for specialized IT services and talent solutions in a fast-evolving digital landscape
and
an expanding portfolio of solutions that meet the needs of global enterprises
That is not the tone expected in an encyclopedia article. That's all vapid corporate PR jargon very similar to the writing style used by 10,000 corporate marketing departments. It is entirely devoid of any useful information about the company for the readers of an encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:15, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Zakoriko

[edit]

Is it completely impossible to get he page up-and-running without completely neutral references? Zakoriko (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zakoriko: it is completely impossible to get a draft accepted which doesn't show that the subject is notable, which in turn is evidenced by independent and reliable sources. It is also impossible to get a completely unreferenced draft accepted, which this now is, since all the references (such as they were) have been removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but my sources are BreakIt and Expressen, which are well-established. The thing is that it's the company representative that provides the quotes. Zakoriko (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakoriko And that means the quotes are not independent. Wikipedia has no interest in what company representatives wish to say about the company. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zakoriko Are you associated with this company? 331dot (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So for instance, this is not considered neutral? https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/ryssar-som-vill-fly-soker--sig-till-malmoforetaget/ Zakoriko (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakoriko: this is the company's CEO commenting on something (Russians trying to get around the various travel restrictions). It isn't really about the company, and it also isn't independent as it's based on an interview of the CEO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're planning to ask about each of the sources in turn, perhaps I can pre-empt that by referring you to the previous discussion here on this same draft: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2024_September_12#12:13,_12_September_2024_review_of_submission_by_176.10.136.162
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakoriko Usually a rejection is the end of the road for a draft. If you can prove that the company meets WP:NORG let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:45, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Zhenghecaris

[edit]

Could someone help me add to this draft? I can’t find many sources and I also have a problem with all the links since some of them I can get in outside Wikipedia but none of them work inside Wikipedia. Zhenghecaris (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do co-editing at this help desk. If you are unable to find enough appropriate sources to summarize, the topic would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time, no amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Rishabhwiki897059

[edit]

Why are you declined Rishabhwiki897059 (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message at the top of your draft, this gives the reason. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:24, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Ramanjot2024

[edit]

page is not published yet Ramanjot2024 (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramanjot2024 No. It is awaiting a review. The current likely maximum wait is 6 weeks. Please commune to improve it while you wait 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Gmkarve2024

[edit]

Gautam Karve is an Indian journalist and media personality currently serves as the Editor-in-Chief of World Media Organization. Under his leadership, World Media Organization has expanded its international media presence and enhanced its coverage of major global events. Gmkarve2024 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Mr. Karve? 331dot (talk) 17:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Work7663

[edit]

i didn't get why my article is being rejected each time. i've put all the links & cites , use all correct information & references. please help me what else i can do? Work7663 (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Work7663 There is simply no indication that Shekhar Bhojraj meets our notability guidelines, he therefore does not merit an article at this time. Qcne (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 18 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1004:B08A:FE6C:9519:7A37:A82F:4FDF

[edit]

Why did my article get declined? 2600:1004:B08A:FE6C:9519:7A37:A82F:4FDF (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to hijack a redirect is not how you write a draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 18 October 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

[edit]

Hi I have edited the article, and would like for someone to kindly review :) JanaFerrume (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, not just declined, and the article was previously deleted twice. The new unreliable or primary sources that were recently were added are not helping the fact that this artist is simply not wiki-notable, meaning she does not meet the bar set by WP guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I'm very sorry if that is not the answer you were hoping for. Netherzone (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 18 October 2024 review of submission by Julia Ohela

[edit]

Hi there, I am struggling to get this draft approved. I am working for Ballet Bond Productions as a manager and thus the content will be similar on the website and Wikipedia. How can I please get this draft approved? Julia Ohela (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Julia Ohela: as stated in the review comments, you must rewrite the content without copying or closely paraphrasing any copyrighted material. Even if you yourself wrote the content on the Ballet Bond website, you can not reuse it here, unless it has been explicitly released into the public domain under a licence compatible with Wikipedia, typically a Creative Commons one. There is no evidence of this on the said website.
As for your relationship with the subject, you have a conflict of interest which must be properly disclosed under our terms and conditions. I queried this on your talk page four months ago but you have not responded. A more specific query, that of paid editing, has now been posted on your talk page. It contains instructions for how to disclose. Please act upon this without delay. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Julia Ohela: To clarify what DoubleGrazing is saying, copyright is granted automatically upon publication - registration only affects damages in a court case - and all-rights-reserved standard copyright irreconciliably conflicts with our content licences such that it's impossible for us to use text still under such copyright, even if you wrote the original. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Material on your website is extremely unlikely to be appropriate to a Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 19

[edit]

02:42, 19 October 2024 review of submission by Prof. Chrishantha

[edit]

Why is this not published Prof. Chrishantha (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prof. Chrishantha: it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comment, have you read them? The reviewer found insufficient evidence of notability. Also, this is a promotional autobiography structured effectively as a CV/resume, and Wikipedia does not publish such content; for that, you will need to find a different platform such as LinkedIn. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:51, 19 October 2024 review of submission by Sajidtariq

[edit]

The doctor is a notable figure in India. What changes I can do to get this approval Sajidtariq (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it was rejected and now deleted. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:19, 19 October 2024 review of submission by Ivanovich24

[edit]

I wrote to The Garden Trust regarding no Wikipedia presence and advised to me that I could create a page from their blog. I do not believe blogs are copyrighted and the information is freely available to anyone performing a web search. I quoted the source but if this is not acceptable, so be it. BUT I will cancel my monetary support if this is not rectified as I see no incentive to continue. Ivanovich24 (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create articles by copying and pasting content, blogs are not reliable sources and canceling your monetary support is an irrelevant pointless threat. Theroadislong (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanovich24: copyright arises automatically upon creation, and does not need to be claimed, registered or otherwise asserted. We therefore assume that unless there is a clear indication to release content from such copyright (eg. by explicitly licensing it under Creative Commons or similar terms), copyright applies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation, which just operates the computers Wikipedia is on. We editors have nothing to do with donations, and making or withholding them has no impact on content. You are free to donate or not donate as you see fit. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the mere fact that something is public on the internet does not mean that it is free of copyright. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Garden Trust, like many people, are ignorant of how Wikipedia works. Neither their approval nor their blog is of any relevance at all to a Wikipedia article.
In order to create an article about a subject, you must first establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, normally by collecting several source which are reliably published (so, not blogs, wikis, or social media), independent (so, not written, published, commission, or containing the words of, the subject or anybody associated with the subject), and containing significant coverage of the subject (not just passing mentions) - see WP:42 for details.
Then, if you have found several such sources, you write a summary (in your own words) of what those independent sources say about the subject. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 19 October 2024 review of submission by Ysudeesh

[edit]

I had tried creating this page and it was rejected. I am not able to understand why. Gopikrishnan is a very famous poet in Kerala, India and I had referenced most of the awards he had received to news sites. Thanks! Ysudeesh (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysudeesh: I declined (not 'rejected') the draft because there is insufficient evidence of notability, and most of the information (apart from the 'Awards' section) is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ysudeesh (ec) I fixed the link to your draft, you need the "Draft:" portion when linking it. The good news is that your 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 if you can address the concerns given.
The awards you list do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Most of your sources seem to just document the awards, and are not signficant coverage of this person. A Wikipedia article summarizes significant coverage of a topic found in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 19 October 2024 review of submission by Masterstrock1

[edit]

I update the paragraph data, please check and help me for publish. Thank You Masterstrock1 (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Masterstrock1, my rejection from May still stands. This is not a viable article. Please find something else to write about. Qcne (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit here [4] added even more promotional content. There are also no independent reliable sources so zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 19 October 2024 review of submission by SriLankanews.artistlk

[edit]

why 

SriLankanews.artistlk (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
notability Qcne (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, you haven't provided even a single source that is reliable and independent, which is what you need to write an article on a subject. YouTube and IMDB are not proper sources to establish notability, nor is an anonymous Medium blog that appears connected to the subject (and from the similarity in handles, possibly yours). The remaining citations also seem connected to the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:07, 19 October 2024 review of submission by Hjijk

[edit]

Hi! I would like to clarify why this page was declined, in order for better submissions on my part in the future. Thank you! Hjijk (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have only summarized her routine activities, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that indicates how she is a notable person. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 20

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
Logojech Who is "us"? Do you work for the Port Authority? 331dot (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]

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

[edit]

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]


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

[edit]

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]

October 21

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1252366676"