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 31

[edit]

07:16, 31 October 2024 review of submission by LukasThomas57

[edit]

I wanted to make an article about the singer LiamWRLD/L1am but it got rejected and I wanted to know why that is 🫤 LukasThomas57 (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LukasThomas57: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:08, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Fayomi Favour

[edit]

I created an article on the biography of Fawaz Muhammad on August but was declined on August 20th due to over citation to unworthy sites. Few days after that I edited it and removed some citations, (some of which were considered unworthy) , leaving only credible sites, but still it didn't make it. What should I do? Fayomi Favour (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayomi Favour: The draft is not waiting for review at the moment. When you think it is ready to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button in the decline notice. --bonadea contributions talk 08:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You are greatly appreciated Fayomi Favour (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:34, 31 October 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:279F:726C:ED86:ED81:1E4:A58B

[edit]

Music artist 2402:8100:279F:726C:ED86:ED81:1E4:A58B (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any sources to show that this musician meets the definition of a notable musician. That's why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. You should have sources in hand before attempting to write an article, please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Heather Clarke

[edit]

My first draft referenced a series of articles about our company, but some of those articles were written by affiliates. So I redid the draft to include ONLY articles written by unbiased reporters. Is the problem still my sources? Or is it that I work for the company/app that I am writing about? I did the disclosures it required, but I'm unsure why it keeps getting declined and listing multiple possible reasons. Thanks! Heather Clarke (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heather Clarke First, I see you have declared a WP:COI on your user page. This is insufficient. I have placed a formal question abut paid editing on your user talk page.
Second, why do you feel this company deserves an article? What is notable about it?
Third, the decline rationales ought to be easy to understand. If they are not then we need to clarify them. With precision, what do you not understand, please?
Before answering any questions make the paid editing declaration on your user page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Job Kiprop Kwonyike

[edit]

I am an employee and I believe I have disclosed in my user page. Can I write the content or must I seek a thid party to do the same. Job Kiprop Kwonyike (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Job Kiprop Kwonyike Anyone seeking payment for writing articles may be part of a SCAM. Please be extremely careful.
You may write an article where you are a paid editor. However, it must meet our standards. You may not advertise you business. Please read HELP:YFA. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Job Kiprop Kwonyike I see that your draft has been deleted twice as an advert. Please learn from this. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have learn. I respect your team a lot, that is why I am seeking guidance on simply how to have a company page approved. 41.90.118.145 (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "company pages" here. We have articles about certain companies that meet our criteria. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:15, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Druvx13

[edit]

I am requesting assistance to better understand how to improve the sourcing and citation requirements for my draft article, "Zand Hanuman." I have added multiple references, including citations from the Gujarati Wikipedia and a local historical website, History of Vadodara. However, the draft was declined for being "improperly sourced."

I would appreciate guidance on:

1. The type of additional sources that would meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and reliability for historic/religious sites like this one.

2. How to improve my existing citations or reference formatting.

3. Any additional steps I should take to provide verifiable information for this article.

Thank you for your assistance! Druvx13 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Druvx13: you need to tell us where this information came from; those are the sources that you should add.
You're not currently citing anything, you've merely listed two sources (one of which being Wikipedia, which is not a valid source). This makes it very difficult for the reviewer to see where the information comes from, and how much of it does not come from a reliable source. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Artistguides

[edit]

My draft for Wiki has been rejected three times, without further instruction or feedback of how I can improve my article. I was wondering if there was some insight I could gain by someone to let me know why my article is being rejected. I have previously edited the article to ensure there are no bare URLs as per one of the feedback suggestions, so I am unsure why this is still being rejected, some feedback just reads as ' a non notable' article, however there are many news articles published about Hendog for his work in Street Art so I am unsure why this would be a non notable article for Wikipedia. Artistguides (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined twice and rejected the last time because the reviewer felt "this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". It seems to just serve to document his work, none of which is itself notable. That would mean this street artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

I have readjusted the content and added new source information. Please review and guide me. Thank you. Rosebabysu (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. It will be reviewed in due course, and the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosebabysu, please stop making new sections here. Telling us you have updated the draft is not going to get it reviewed faster. This board is here for people to ask questions about the process. You have made four sections in three days, none of which involved asking a question. Please be patient and only come here if you have a question, so that volunteers' time is not wasted. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Mel tilly

[edit]

I don't understand why this was rejected. Nancy is a notable person with references that are credible and reputable. I just edited the draft and added two awards. Nancy's co-founder has a wikipedia page that is published (Michael Koppelman) and I would like to get her page published as well. Thank you. Melanie Shirley (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mel tilly It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The whole url is not necessary when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, I fixed this for you.
Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may not be appropriate(I haven't examined it yet).
Most of the awards you list do not contribute to notability, as the awards themselves do not have articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The draft just documents her activities, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say is notable about her. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Koppelman article, it is very poorly sourced(note that is is marked with a maintenance tag as problematic) and a poor model to use. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Michael Koppelman to WP:AFD, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Koppelman predates the drafting process entirely (first edit 2004 Dec 01) and was thus never formally drafted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Misa-Mii

[edit]

publishing an article about a content creator and their biography Misa-Mii (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT a potential article it is blatant, unsourced, totally inappropriate promotion and correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Richard Michael Allen Richmond 51

[edit]

I just want to ensure that my submission was permanently deleted. If not, please let me know what I need to do to delete the submission. Thanks Richard Michael Allen Richmond 51 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's now deleted. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that "deleted" means it is no longer visible to the public, but it is not vaporized, it can be seen by admins and recovered if requested. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Ingenierofilantropo

[edit]

Hello.

This is not promotional, and is 100% factual. Do you have any other means by which this page could move forward, or edits that can be made? Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ingenierofilantropo Rammed full of copyright violating pictures. No. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I own all of these files. Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingenierofilantropo Then prove that you have the right to upload them by following the process at c:COM:VRT. They are being handled at Wikimedia Commons currently. Ownership of a photograph does not mean you own the copyright, nor that you have the right to upload it. Copyright is more complex than many people realise.
The draft has been deleted. If you disagree with the deleting administrator please approach them in the first instance. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will review the c:COM:VRT protocol. Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:56, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Bkiller127

[edit]

I have not found “Proof” of your statement. Bkiller127 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be G11'ed instead of being G1'ed? I don't see how this one is gibberish, and my best bet is that this draft be speeded under other criteria's like G11... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is G11, now. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:07, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Alex.Dybala

[edit]

I made an artice and it got approved but they took it down and made it a draft again. Was the reason for not enough secondary or tertiary sources?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alex.Dybala#c-SafariScribe-20241031041100-Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Simone_Scaglia_has_been_accepted

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

Alex.Dybala (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why my draft wasn't approved

[edit]

draft:loves farm Size5football (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 1

[edit]

00:00, 1 November 2024 review of submission by A.almana

[edit]

hi which source is not reliable ? A.almana (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.almana Please read WP:REFB and sort your referencing out. They are unreadable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:36, 1 November 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:279E:7E4D:333A:6D03:2180:2958

[edit]

Because he is a singer available all platform songs 2402:8100:279E:7E4D:333A:6D03:2180:2958 (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just having songs available on music platforms is not sufficient to establish notability. Articles are based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No such sources are provided and, in fact, there's barely any content on the article itself. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be reconsidered at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:11:26, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Immaculate Namanda

[edit]
Collapse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Pebuu Africa

Pebuu Africa is a data-driven field management technology solutions firm headquartered in Uganda. The company is focused on driving digital transformation across Africa by offering solutions in agent and merchant management, as well as last-mile distribution. Pebuu is involved in modernizing value chains across the continent, with a particular emphasis on distribution, agent banking, and merchant management.

Pebuu operates across several key African markets, including South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The company's services enable financial institutions and retail companies to deliver seamless, innovative, and inclusive financial solutions to underserved communities, helping bridge the gap between traditional and digital economies.

Operations in Uganda

In Uganda, Pebuu has expanded its service network to over 320 locations, managing a network of more than 20,000 agents. The company uses technology platforms that provide real-time tracking and geo-mapping solutions, improving operational oversight and the management of agents and merchant service points. These technologies have contributed to the recruitment, monitoring, and supervision of bank agents, playing a critical role in maintaining a well-regulated financial services ecosystem.

Global Expansion

As part of its global growth strategy, Pebuu has established an office in the United States of America. This international expansion aims to strengthen the company's presence in high-growth markets and further its mission of contributing to financial inclusion and sustainable growth across Africa. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Immaculate Namanda: you don't ask a question, but Draft:Pebuu has been deleted as promotional. Please don't post the same sort of promo blurb here, this help desk is only for seeking assistance with drafts undergoing the AfC review process and matters related to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, apologies. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left them my incredibly helpful and informative deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: It really is helpful and informative – I have thought that before, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:29, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Elinhprotianthrwpi

[edit]

Hello wikipedia gurus, I don't know what I am doing wrong. I wish I understood, but you all know about wikipedia use much better than me. Can someone please finally help me create this page for author Penelope Penny Koutourinis? Can someone please fix it for me so it fits the correct wikipedia guidelines as you are the experts at wikipedia and not me. Your help is mostly appreaciated. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinhprotianthrwpi: while waiting for a guru to come along, I'll take a swing at this.
You need to support the draft with reliable sources, which must be cited 'inline' ie. in the draft text next to the information they support.
You also need to show evidence that this person is notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedia. You have two options: either via the general WP:GNG notability route, which requires significant coverage of her in multiple secondary sources, or the WP:AUTHOR route which needs evidence of a reasonably significant writing career.
And no, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok DoubleGrzing thanks for your help I'll give it another try Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, doubleGrazing I went to the WP:GNG page and from my understanding I need sources for Penelope, but I added the sources and notable links to her books, I used google books as a source, maybe I didn't do it right
so, in my editing page, where I created the article, what do I need to write or add to make it acceptable? please help me via steps if you can because you are the guru on wikepedia and I am an absolute beginner!!! Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello, I can't seem to add the cited 'inline' I don't know where to write it and what I have to write , so sorry, I am a beginner, please help with steps, thank you Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show how they pass the criteria at WP:NWRITER first. Theroadislong (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, how do I get the article to pass the criteria, I read it all, the article on Penelope Penny Koutourinis is notable as she is a writer and author, and what do I do next? please helps with steps of what I have to do to get her article on wiki as it is ligit, she is an author Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being an author isn't enough to merit an article, with the internet and self publishing almost anyone can "be an author". You need to show that she passes at least one of the criteria written at WP:NWRITER. Which of those criteria do you feel she passes? 331dot (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what if the articles are in another language? and as far as I know she has recognition. but you are the gurus, if you say she can't be on wikipedia then I have to respect that. have a good day, thanks for your assistance. Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinhprotianthrwpi: she is not notable just because you say so, she is (?) notable when you produce evidence of that. Being a writer is not enough; she must be a writer who has received significant attention for her writing, and for that we need to see reliable and independent sources proving it. Your draft lists (without citing) two issues of one publication, which doesn't seem to be available to view, and one user-generated source which may or may not be reliable.
You can find pretty much everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA, and WP:REFB tells you how to correctly cite your sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, most articles of her are in another language, not English, that's why I didn't add the citings. Some articles about her come from an Australian magazine a few years ago, to which I provided the links. Also, my dear, it's not just me who says she is recognized, and I can understand that wiki has certain guidelines, but I was trying to create an article about a person who is genuinely an author and not someone random who acts as one. In any case, I respect wiki's rules and if ever she gains worldwide media attention, then I'll come back then and write the citings, ref, sources ect. have a great day. thank you! Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinhprotianthrwpi No amount of discussion can make her notable. Please research referencing, and deploy those references wisely. Non English references are fine.
You have all the tools at your disposal, so please use them. Either she is notable in a Wikipedia sense, or she is not.
When you have done the work, please resubmit for review.
Please do not patronise other editors, 'Also, my dear, it's not just m..." is not a welcome turn of phrase. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, patronizing? I believe there's a misunderstanding, I have been nothing but polite to everyone who has tried to help me. So, if you feel offended by writing, my dear, which wasn't to you, then i apologize, but my intentions have and will be polite to all editors. I am offended that you got involved in a discussion between me and DoubleGrazing, I don't think he or she was offended, I believe they understood my sincerity to the matter. When someone signs off the message with, have a great day, be well, is that patronizing? No. Therefore, I kindly request, that you do not accuse without a solid fact that I was patronizing. In any case, I was merely trying to write an article about her because I had read three of her books and then searched that she has references in Greek newspapers and magazines. Asking for help isn't a bad thing. I have taken another editor's suggestion, therefore please do not reply to me again, and I'm saying that in the nicest coolest way. Have a great day. Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to limit a discussion to yourself and someone else, that is best done on their user talk page. Discussions in open forums like this may be commented on by anyone.
I understand that in some cultures, addressing others as "dear" is acceptable, but in others it's considered demeaning. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elinhprotianthrwpi An interesting form of apology: 'if you feel offended by writing, my dear, which wasn't to you, then I apologize is a non apology. You cannot make a legitimate apology "if" someone feels offended. You need to make a correct apology because you have caused offence by your words, even if that offence was unintended. However, you have now doubles down on your words which you now know to be patronising.
As for your bluster 'I am offended that you got involved in a discussion between me and DoubleGrazing' I suggest you pull your horns in. Wikipedia works on civility and collegiality. That was neither. Please read WP:CIVIL
I have carefully disregarded your request not to reply to you further because your words required, nay invited, a reply. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Elinhprotianthrwpi. I'm afraid that you are having a pretty normal experience for somebody who signs up for Wikipedia and immediately tries the challenging task of creating an article. 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.
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. Such sources do not have to be in English, as long as they are reliable and independent. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ColinFine,
thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. I'll get to know wikipedia better. I don't not know the person I am writing the article for personally, if that's what you're assuming. I have read three of her books, and when I searched her, I found that she had written many books and found some articles written about her in greek newspapers and magazines. asking other people about her I also found out she is known, but from my understanding she is low profile person. in any case, I will post the articles in greek on reference and try submitting again. if that doesn't work, like I said above, I will submit her article when I can gather more cititaions and references. have a great day. thank you Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Pareekshamitra

[edit]

want to know about the coverage 

Pareekshamitra (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pareekshamitra: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but of the sources cited in this draft, IMDb is not considered reliable, and the only other source merely lists this person in the cast ie. provides no significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:02, 1 November 2024 review of submission by CoachAni

[edit]

The article has been referenced by independent sources wondering why it still got declined. There are some articles on wikipedia which have only two sources yet have been published. could there be other reasons why this article is being declined? CoachAni (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoachAni: the existence of other articles (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) isn't relevant. We know there are all sorts of problems among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we should create more of them.
Per the reviewer's comments, the sources don't establish notability. It's not enough that they are independent (and reliable), they must also be secondary, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject.
I don't know why you think there might be "other reasons" for declining this, other than what is stated on the decline notice – could you elaborate, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are thinking it was declined for only having two sources, and since existing articles do, there must be another reason. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CoachAni Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by volunteers doing what they can when they can. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, even for years, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to inappropriate articles please don't get me wrong. Thank you for your feedback. Well noted.CoachAni (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an article has only two sources, it likely is inappropriate and needs work. It doesn't necessarily need to be deleted, just action taken. My main point is that it isn't a good idea to use any random article as a guide or model. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Aishuffg7

[edit]

IW TANMAYA: Video editor, frontend dev, Virtech Studio & PaintCraft founder, filmmaker, robotics enthusiast, working on a Safety Smart Band. Aishuffg7 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offered no independent reliable sources.
You will need to disclose your connection to this person, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a very professional looking image of this person and they posed for you. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Elinhprotianthrwpi

[edit]

hello wiki gurus, I can't seem to add the cited 'inline' to Penelope Penny Koutourinis' page, I don't know where to write the cited inline part in her article and what I have to write exactly. I looked at the info links provided, but I still can't work it out, so sorry, I am a beginner, please help with steps, thank you. most appreciated Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This duplicates the above thread; please stick to that thread, do not create additional threads. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Sandeephbk2024

[edit]

What is the meaning "notable" Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandeephbk2024 Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which outlines our policy. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandeephbk2024 If you are associated with the company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i am associated with this company my company email id id [redacted] Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandeephbk2024 You must make a formal disclosure of that, see WP:PAID. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. Wikipedia articles about companies summarize 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) 12:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Bakhos2010

[edit]

My draft article have reliable sources, but why is it still declined? Bakhos2010 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhos2010 Please read with care about Reliable sources, Because I think you have not quite got it right. YouTube, especially, can be a challenge because it is user generated coated with little or no editorial rigour. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent But IShowSpeed's article have like several youtube videos references i think, and how is it still reliable and can be a article? Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.
We have many inappropriate articles here. If you feel that the one you mention is not appropriate please suggest it for deletion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I understand. I removed only one YouTube video source from the "Career" section, so it will now stay with just the YouTube video source from "(born November 5, 2004)". If I remove it, it will require a source, so I kept only one. What should i do next? Bakhos2010 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the draft is ready, resumbit by clicking the blue button. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010 As long as you have read the links I gave you then you have the information you need. If he passeds our criteria he passes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent The English language from reliable sources is quite hard, but i've learned a bit, so i think it passes criteria. Bakhos2010 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakhos2010 Then I wish you success. We learn by doing ever better. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Adamewhite

[edit]

I've been working on this draft of a Wikipedia entry on a very important person and trailblazer in contemporary philanthropy. I keep hitting roadblocks because I keep being told that I haven't included "reliable sources," but the sources I'm citing are from the most preeminent periodicals and organs of contemporary philanthropy.

I'm not sure what else to do -- could someone help more concretely than just telling me to include "reliable sources?" Adamewhite (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamewhite Anything from PRNewswirse is a PR piece and has no value in verifying much, especially notability. Any organisation talking about its staff is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY is helpful here.
Significant coverage - in excess of three well crafted paragraphs - is required. You have many passing mentions
Amongst your sources are no big hitters.
All this means that you have a problem. I believe that is because you write this WP:BACKWARDS. To solve this, please research all the references you can find about Miller. Then discard the chaff. From the whet, create a storyboard which tells Miller's story, totally in your own words, with the facts cited by the references. One reference per fact, please, but, when a references encompasses several facts it may be re-used.
Here's the thing. If you cant find good references then no amount of wording will create notability, this is the abandonment point, before you have started writing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My frustration here is that these references -- from Philanthropy Magazine, from Non-Profit Quarterly Magazine, from the New York Federal Reserve -- are all very legitimate sources documenting the the world of professional philanthropy.
Moreover, if the very foundation that has hired her as a president issues a news release that announces it, how is that not a primary source?
Also, the notion of "big hitters" feels very arbitrary -- what constitutes that? Who arbitrates this?
Clara Miller is a very important figure in this world and very famous inside as a trailblazer for women in what is typically a very male-dominated field. I have marshaled all of her positions and awards because I wanted to evidence her prominence -- I felt like this was a safer route than telling a story that involves claims that aren't materially specific.
For instance, a statement like "Miller is a major figure in the development of non-profit philanthropy" is incontrovertibly true, but how am I supposed to support a broad claim like that unless I show the impressive career trajectory that she has undertaken?
Given that I know firsthand how many deeply niche and frankly margin people have Wikipedia entries, I find it baffling that a very notable woman within this field is denied this. Adamewhite (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Adamewhite. "Notable" is in some ways an unfortunate choice of word, because it means something different from what people assume it means. Generally it means that there is enough reliably published independent material available to base an article on.
I haven't looked at most of your cited sources, but it is pretty clear that many of them are not independent of Miller: they are in some way repeating her words or those of her associates.
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.
One other question: what is your connection with Miller? Since you have asserted that you personally own the copyright of the picture you uploaded, you presumably have some connection, and need to be aware of the significance of editing with a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ColinFine. I had included a photo I thought was free of copyright, but I took it down to ensure that it didn't run into any copyright issue.
I work in philanthropy but do not know the subject of the entry. She is just a major figure in the field, and my colleagues and I were surprised that she did not have an entry. I volunteered to draft it as best I could.
As for the entries not independent of Miller, I'm not sure what these are. To which are you referencing? The major magazines of this field of philanthropy -- Philanthropy, Nonprofit Quarterly, etc. -- are not affiliated with her.
I've tried to include an online reference I can to vouch for every statement I've made -- unfortunately the world of philanthropy isn't as well-documented online as some other fields. However, if you could point to the problematic reference(s), I can try to find better ones. Thanks for any help you can provide! Adamewhite (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamewhite That the organisation say it has hired her verifies a simple fact, not notability.
It is worth reading about reliable surces to determine what is and is not relaible
Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. They must be secondary sources. Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. It records without infringing copyright what is said n secondary sources.
So, looking at Philanthropy Magazine, from Non-Profit Quarterly Magazine, from the New York Federal Reserve -- are all very legitimate sources documenting the the world of professional philanthropy yu need to determine which is primary and which is secondary. You will also run into WP:SELFPUB at some point. If oyu are citing, for example, learned papers by Miller, then peer review is important as is whether those papers are cited by others in the course of their work, and by whom and how many instances.
There is no single set of rules. Your job is to navigate the somewhat unpredictable seas with care. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FiddleFaddle, I've cited the organization that hired her to reference her hiring. The organization itself is a big one within philanthropy -- if you would like me to then cite references to its significance, that is a separate issue.
Again, this is the trap of "notability" -- if a random Wikipedia editor hasn't heard of something, does that really constitute lack of notability? I don't know much about, say, cricket, so if I'm confronted with an article about a cricket player, who am I to say whether the cricket player is "notable"? If all the citations are to cricket magazines, how am I to know these magazines are "reliable" or "independent"? Adamewhite (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I declined your draft because the awards are not notable, ie they have no Wikipedia articles and many of your asources are press releases which are not considered independent, you have re-submitted with very little improvement which is disruptive and pointless. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamewhite, there is help available in the form of WP:RSPSS, which lists many common (and uncommon!) sources and the consensus that's been formed for them. This is also why we suggest draft writing should be an end game scenario for editors - if you spend time working on other articles, discussing with other editors, you start to understand what sort of sources are suitable and what are not. A few examples to help:
  • If the article subject (or their CEO, employer, best friend, etc) has been involved in the source - like giving an interview - that source is not independent.
  • If the source looks like it might have been written by a PR team, it probably came from the subject and is not independent. It may also be a paid-for advertorial and thus also unreliable.
  • If the source has no author name or byline, and just says 'news team' or something like that, it may not be reliable.
In your example, you'd first check to see whether the cricket magazine looked legit - does it have author names for its articles? Does it include both positive and negative information? Does it clearly differentiate ads from articles? If unsure, you'd then head to the Reliable Sources list linked above, to see if it's there. If it's not, you could move to the reliable sources noticeboard to firstly search for previous discussions and then ask for help from fellow Wikipedians.
I don't see that anyone has pointed you to WP:42 yet, but that's our 'golden rule' in terms of sources. If you want to establish notability, the sources you use to do so must conform to the triple criteria there. It can be a lot to take in all at once so don't feel rushed; there's no deadline and you can take your time looking through all the information and comparing your sources. And we are, of course, always here and happy to help! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Digimoji

[edit]

How to write it in the language of an encyclopaedia article Digimoji (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digimoji An encyclopedia article does not draw conclusions, as your draft currently does. Articles here just summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, rejection seems a bit harsh, surely? As an elected legislator, notability shouldn't be an issue. It needs a bit more work on language, and the referencing could be improved also, but this should be fundamentally publishable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I agree, so I have reverted the rejection.
@Digimoji Take heart. I may review the draft or I may leave it to another. I think they pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and I may simply accept it and allow the community to decide. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted on the basis that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process in my view 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree- he's notable as a legislator. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Dr.bobbs

[edit]

I need help with using citations with broken (archived?) links in Draft:Gary Stockdale. Specifically, these citations are to the Library of Congress. There are 4 such citations at Draft:Gary Stockdale.

I found these citations using Google searches, for example, a Google search for "Doctor Detroit" "Gary Stockdale" shows that a page at https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200015001/ contains the info I want. However, when I go to that URL, I get only "Sorry! We can't find what you're looking for. The page you requested could not be found." I'm not sure if this means that the page I want has been archived; but if it has, I don't know where to find the archived page, or an archive date.

Is such a citation usable, and if so, how to cite it, please? Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Edgar at ChariotEnergy

[edit]

I need help with my draft. It was seemingly declined because of the sources. I used other articles on Wikipedia for industry competitors as a reference for using sources, seemingly using sources that were relatively the same. One article in particular is Reliant Energy, which uses sources similar to sources that I used for this article draft, yet Reliant was published and this article has been declined. For example, there are sources Reliant uses such as Power to Choose, Power Engineering, Chron.com, Better Business Bureau, Energy Manager Today, that reflects sources that I've used for this article. While I did not use some of these exact same sources, I used sources that were relatively the same, such as Chron.com, Power to Choose, Better Business Bureau, and other industry websites. I just want to know why this article is being declined for sources not being used correctly. Edgar at ChariotEnergy (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar at ChariotEnergy You have made an understandable, if poor, mistake in using any random article as a guide. Please see other stuff exists. These other articles themselves could be problematic and you would be unaware of this as a new user. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist and go unaddressed by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about. If you'd like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Press releases(businesswire) are useless for establishing notability. You have just summarized the routine business activities of your company; not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company that goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about your company- how it is notable as Wikipedia defines a notable company. I get that you think your company is notable, but what matters is that others see your company as notable.
If you've been asked to be here, please see WP:BOSS. In my experience it is very difficult for people in your position to write as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @LoneStarScribe (I'm pinging you under that name, because I'm not sure if the ping will get to you under a name which is not your user name but a redirect of your User page). Unfortunately, your experience is a very common one for people who register and immediately try the challenging task of creating a new article. It is not surprising that you are unaware of how Wikipedia works.
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..
I guessing that this won't be welcome advice: but would you in your job start working on a new system without getting any training first? ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by 41.76.101.246

[edit]

Can an award winning be a notable reason to have this article on Wiki 41.76.101.246 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, winning an award that has a Wikipedia article about the award itself(like Academy Award or Filmfare Award) would make the film notable, but merely being nominated does not. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 1 November 2024 review of submission by MarkWHowe

[edit]

I see a reviewer's comment but I cannot find the talk page where I can respond to it. I am looking for a talk page where the reviewer's comment is shown and a [reply] can be used. Not found on either mine or his talk page. MarkWHowe (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkWHowe: they won't be on any talk page. If the reviewer added comments (optionally), they will appear on the draft page itself, below the decline notice. This is done often, but not always, so there may be no comments at all, other than the templated ones in the decline notice itself.
You can always approach the reviewer on their talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I quoted it at the talk page for the draft as a discussion item and then answered it. Do you think that might work?? I get confused by so many pages and procedures but it is getting better.  :-) MarkWHowe (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, ping in the editor by doing an @ symbol followed by their username, in this instance @Dan arndt and @Theroadislong. Qcne (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, my head is spinning! So many things. Great hint, thanks. MarkWHowe (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:54, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Anishka Ranjeevi

[edit]

why is rejected Anishka Ranjeevi (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer; Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. See WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:48, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Ilnarildarovuch

[edit]

All sources are located on the official libssh website, but they are very strangely scattered throughout the site, so the links only libssh.org Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilnarildarovuch we require independent sources which are not affiliated with Libssh, think tech magazines. Qcne (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite difficult to find sources of this type, as it turned out, but... There are only two of them. Will that be enough? Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me links to the two sources you found, I can make a judgement. Qcne (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here it is: [1]https://expertbeacon.com/introduction-to-libssh-the-ultimate-ssh-library/ [2]https://devdoc.net/linux/libssh2-1.9.0-docs/libssh2-vs-libssh.html Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1 I don't think is reliable - it looks to be some kind of SEO-blog, I don't think has any editorial standards.
  2. 2 Is okay, but ideally we'd want some kind of analysis instead of "here's the features in a list". Perhaps Libssh appears in academic tech books? Try searching Google Books.
Qcne (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First book (Advanced Penetration Testing - Hacking the World's Most Secure Networks), Page 39: https://github.com/mrH0411/Ebook-EthicalHacking/blob/main/Advanced%20Penetration%20Testing%20-%20Hacking%20the%20World's%20Most%20Secure%20Networks%20by%20Wil%20Allsopp.pdf (proof of libssh works with SSH protocol). Second is documnetation from Cisco company: [3]https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9500/software/release/17-14/configuration_guide/sec/b_1714_sec_9500_cg/ssh_algorithms_for_common_criteria_certification.pdf (Every page, but not sayed about libssh, but it can confirmed, if found email *@sshlib.org) Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Ilnarildarovuch. I haven't looked at those sources, but from your description, it sounds as if they are not helpful, because it doesn't sound as if any of them provide significant coverage of libssh.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject - almost nothing else. What you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know about the subject is irrelevant, unless it is backed up by adequate sources.
If you can find some reliable independent published accounts of the how and the why that libssh came to be, then you can write an article based on those accounts. Otherwise, no. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2

[edit]

09:09, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Sleepytimecat

[edit]

My article didn't meet notability guidelines, I was looking for further advice on what areas it's specifically lacking in. Would be a huge help in me figuring out how to move forward with it :) Sleepytimecat (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepytimecat I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.
You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?
The awards do not contribute to notability as the awards lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You've summarized the work of the organization but not described its particular influence. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleepytimecat: I only had a quick look at the sources, didn't analyse them in any depth, but it seems to me they're either primary, or where secondary then they don't provide significant coverage directly of this organisation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Cheers for the fix! I was a volunteer for the organisation in the past.
@DoubleGrazing Thanks, that's really helpful, I did wonder if that might be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepytimecat (talk • contribs) 09:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Sleepytimecat. 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.
Unless you can find several such sources, there is no point in spending further time on this draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 2 November 2024 review of submission by HindutvaWarriors

[edit]

Can you please tell me improvements in reference and citing? HindutvaWarriors (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HindutvaWarriors Sure. Add and properly format reliable sources, write in a neutral tone, and avoid using AI. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:43, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Christian Ries

[edit]

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Christian_Ries#Eddie_Ware_moved_to_draftspace

Hello, I wrote an article about the very little known blues pianist Eddie Ware and cited a book (that I own) with a specific reference to the page in the book (which I read), a website (which I read) and the worldwide largest music database discogs.com (which I looked up). Thus, my submission is adequately supported by reliable sources which can be verified. I doubt that Johannes Maximilian has read the book and owns a record of this blues pianist, which are in fact quite rare. So here I am, a scientist knowing how to correctly cite and write a Wikipedia article being blocked by someone ignoring the references I provided and declining my submission.

Why is Johannes Maximilian's position not being questioned? He ignores my references and accuses me of not providing enough references in the draft article.

Thank you in advance, Christian Ries (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked them directly?
The body of the draft is completely unsourced, sources need to be in line next to the text they are supporting. "Very little known" almost certainly means this musician does not meet the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A passing mention and a blog post are not sufficient to establish notability, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources.
(edit conflict) @Christian Ries Discogs and blogs are not reliable sources, as they are both user-generated. A single mention in a book is not significant coverage. In addition, please assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Christian Ries: this was absolutely correctly declined for insufficient referencing (could have additionally been declined for lack of evidence of notability), and any reviewer would have likely done the same; there is no need to personally attack the reviewer who happened to be the bearer of bad news (or rather, news you didn't like). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Beside the website I mention there are no other on-line sources about this exceptional, but mostly unknown blues pianist." this is a VERY strong indication that we cannot have an article about him. Theroadislong (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:47, 2 November 2024 review of submission by ZiWinger

[edit]


ZiWinger (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Need help? On Draft:Countryball World.[reply]

We base articles on what reliable, independent sources say. Your draft has zero sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Bock1234

[edit]

Hello, please help me I have been trying this for the pass one month but it unfortunately declined please help me out on this article. Bock1234 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources are reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Ahmad87861

[edit]

Please help me to publish this biography, i few days ago some contributors ask me for notability, so here is the evidence of notability (https://samaa.tv/2087323388-peshawar-s-emerging-musician-chooses-authenticity-over-fame), and please understand Alamsher LLC as a musician not a company, please tell me whats the problem now ? Ahmad87861 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single source written by a computer science student at Huzaifa Aftab Shaheed Higher Secondary School, Peshawar is unlikely to be significant enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Andrewworley048

[edit]

Yes I created an article of Syria wildfires it was declined because of of it said was unreliable sources that is not true it was a reliable source tell me what was wrong with it because there is nothing wrong with it, please reconsider this. thanks. Andrewworley048 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You offered one source. An article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have declined it and tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:32, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Thanosb94

[edit]

Hello,

can I use the Youtube channels of major tv and radio platforms as reference to showcase that one is making frequent appearances in TV and radio shows as a commentator on politics?

If not, what else could I do?

I have tried to go the websites of these platforms, but they do not showcase concrete and concentrated results for those who are guests on their platforms. Only random results regarding (I guess) the way each website is built. 


Thanosb94 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thanosb94: yes, you can use reliable and reputable media outlets' own official YouTube channels as sources; that's just about the only acceptable use there is of YouTube as referencing. That said, someone appearing on media as a commentator almost certainly doesn't help establish notability, because being interviewed or otherwise commenting on some matter is not about them, it's them talking about something else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Thanosb94. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:42, 2 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A473:63DF:1:E028:9E5A:A95A:E927

[edit]

To whom it may concern,

I'm a former vice president of PSAG and a honourary member. I would like to complete the Wikipedia article about our association. I'm aware of the limited sources mentioning PSAG. However, there can not be a more reliable and stable source than a university. Of course there are different universities out there, but University of Groningen is world's top research academic institution.

Please, let me know how could we secure the validation of wiki page about PSAG without additional references.

Sincerely,

Maciej Gladys 2A02:A473:63DF:1:E028:9E5A:A95A:E927 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Bakhos2010

[edit]

Hello, I worked on this draft article, adding sources i found on Google. Now, there are no more sources to find. Is it notable now? If not, I will still work on it sometimes, possibly not everyday. Bakhos2010 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakhos2010 Seems to be WP:BLP1E, and that event is being a publicity seeking celebrity wannabe. So no. Others may hold different views. Submit it for review if you disagree with me. I will not review it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent I agree with you. I thought this draft article wasn't BLP1E, but it is, so i won't submit it until some reliable sources about Norme come. Bakhos2010 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:55, 2 November 2024 review of submission by WikiPsychology

[edit]

And if I add more information and sources to my article, would there be a chance of it being accepted? WikiPsychology (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiPsychology However, as @I dream of horses said 'Most of this can be merged into adolescence, positive youth development, and young adult. ', which suggests that you may be on the wrong road. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:10, 2 November 2024 review of submission by 2601:14D:4881:CD00:C121:6513:2E62:D6A0

[edit]

Please Advice 2601:14D:4881:CD00:C121:6513:2E62:D6A0 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have written an advertisement about yourself. It has been rejected, and will not proceed further. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 2 November 2024 review of submission by CrimsonScarletBurgundyy

[edit]

Hello. I want to know if adding photos of living, real people violates the creative commons of wikipedia. By the way, I do not own the photos that I plan to add, nor are they of me (instead, they are of a singer). CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy that absolutely violates copyright. Do not do that. Qcne (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could I add the image of the singer? Is there a way or not? I'm just checking twice because I saw some pages that I believe that have photos of real people not owed by the uploader. Sorry CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy Pictures are almost always handled on Wikimedia Commons. This is a different web site. Commons:Licensing will give you a good overview.
You may only upload pictures which you have the right to upload. Things you find on the internet are not yours to upload and will result in loss of editing privileges on Commons or here, depending upon where they transgression is. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CrimsonScarletBurgundyy. The answer to your question is that adding such photos doesn't necessarily violate copyright, but in most real cases it does. Only if you could get the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer, not the subject) to release the image under a licence that will permit anybody the world to reuse or alter the image for any purpose, can it be uploaded to Commons. (See Donating copyright materials).
However, please note that adding photos to your draft will not make any difference at all to whether it is accepted by a reviewer. That would be like trying to get a badly-built house accepted by the building control authorities and saying, "Look, I've painted this window beautifully!".
Like most new editors who immediately try the very challenging task of creating an article, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. 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) 22:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:43, 2 November 2024 review of submission by WhyBlockIP

[edit]

I just can't get approved, what do I do? WhyBlockIP (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhyBlockIP You read HELP:YFA and start again from scratch 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected means there is nothing you can do. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That too! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 3

[edit]

04:21, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Xavier Serif

[edit]


Please explain why this is not considered to be a reliable source:

https://repositorio.umsa.bo/handle/123456789/11306 Xavier Serif (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xavier Serif: has someone said that it's not reliable? I don't think that's even cited as a source in your draft.
But since you ask, this appears to be a dissertation for an undergraduate-level degree, which per WP:THESIS are not considered reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Ahmad87861

[edit]

i have edited the refrence and make it more notable, please help me to publish it. Ahmad87861 (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmad87861: there is zero evidence of notability in this new draft, either. If a topic isn't notable, there's nothing you can do. If you keep recreating this tendentiously, you may get yourself blocked for spamming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by notability, there is already a reference link to show the notability? Ahmad87861 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmad87861: as already explained to you the last time you asked, a single source is not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, especially one written by a student of some sort, rather than a professional journalist or music critic. And there is absolutely nothing in this draft to indicate that the subject would be even remotely notable by the WP:MUSICBIO guideline, either.
Not to mention that the draft is unreferenced throughout, so we don't even know if any of it is true.
My advice would be to drop this now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, leme find more sources to show the notability. I'll update the draft soon as i find more reliable sources. Ahmad87861 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Xander du Plessis

[edit]

What should I change for this page to be submitted? Xander du Plessis (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xander du Plessis: nothing; this has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:31, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

Hello, I would like to ask if a person must have an exclusive interview report to prove his or her fame? Rosebabysu (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu: what is an "exclusive interview report"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A person's "fame" is not relevant- we're looking for notability as Wikipedia defines the word; a person can be famous but not notable. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources, which must be in depth. In this case you are looking for this person to meet the notable creative professional definition or the broader notable person definition.
The awards you mention are meaningless towards notability as the awards lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by PavlovTruth

[edit]

My family has an entire book on our Russian Heritage. I've translated everything. Please show respect to our legacy. Im signing off forever, God Bless. PavlovTruth (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PavlovTruth: be that as it may, your draft is completely unreferenced, and cannot therefore be accepted. As a bare minimum, you should cite the book you're referring to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is entirely unsourced and the MOS:PEACOCK language is overwhelming. Language like "embodying a proud heritage and tradition that represents the grandeur of Imperial Russia" and "the only surviving noble line truly "worthy of the Russian Empire" due to their unwavering commitment to preserving Russian customs, values, and traditions" or "The family’s unique blend of Russian imperial heritage and American frontier spirit has solidified their legacy as a rare bridge between the East and West, embodying both the sophistication of Russian aristocracy and the pioneering resilience of North America" is wholly inappropriate without ironclad sourcing, far beyond a single unreferenced book about the family. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Rsm2324

[edit]

Can you please advise how can we get the page shown on wikki what should be done Rsm2324 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsm2324: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It presents no evidence, or even suggestion, of notability, and is purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising and zero indication of passing WP:NCORP rejected correctly, there is nothing you can do. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:42, 3 November 2024 review of submission by 98.113.99.90

[edit]

It was denied and I wish to know why to improve 98.113.99.90 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected, and I've just requested speedy deletion on it. If you wish to write fantasy fiction, please find another platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Harezmli

[edit]

Hello, first of all, I am curious about the reason why my page was rejected because I am researching the period sources and I also think that I have not done anything against Wikipedia rules. I would be happy if you respond to my message. Harezmli (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Tavantius Qcne (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A draft oddly similar to this was previously rejected, with the draft's creator being blocked as a sockpuppet. Hence, I rejected the draft. In retrospect, rejecting it was probably too harsh. Tavantius (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:59, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Shybee24

[edit]

kindly tell me the reason Shybee24 (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pure spam, @Shybee24. Qcne (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what?? how??? can you define? Shybee24 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shybee24 See WP:SPAM. Qcne (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by GalacticVelocity08

[edit]

Hello, my draft regarding this article was recently declined a couple days ago. I completely understand the reason as to why it was denied, however I am unsure on how to proceed. I discussed this with the individual on my talk page, but would like to seek additional guidance here.

The draft was declined due to a previous deletion discussion during late July/early August 2024. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_David). For context, I was not yet on Wikipedia at the time, and this was an entirely different version of the draft.

My draft currently has significant coverage, reliable sources, and in my opinion, notability. While I am aware of and understand WP:OSE, it is quite contradictory that all other drivers at the same level (or lower) have articles, and he does not. I understand that I am the one who has to prove what has changed since the AfD, but I find it a bit unproductive and redundant to wait while there is clear notability. I hope this makes sense and it doesn't sound like I'm whining, but I'm really not sure how to proceed (unless I just have to wait until he enters a higher series). Is the most logical step to bring this to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review ?

links to relevant/most series:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Formula_Regional_Middle_East_Championship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Formula_Regional_European_Championship

(notice how other drivers that finished in similar positions all have articles)

link to failed undeletion request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_400#Draft:Zachary_David

(not sure how to hyperlink under this. sorry) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be quite contradictory that all other drivers at the same level (or lower) have articles, and he does not, but it is perfectly possible that this is the correct result, if it happens that independent commentators have chosen to write about them but not about him. (I'm not saying that that is the case, but I'm saying that it could be). His "level" is not relevant. ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the response. For context, the two main websites that publish articles relating to these drivers are feederseries.net and formulascout.com. In the draft, there are articles from both of these websites.
He might not have as much coverage compared to his peers, but I believe that he still has significant coverage. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GalacticVelocity08! Let's see if we can work this out. I'll have a look at some of your sources, and either tell you what's missing or ping the reviewer to see if they'd reconsider (or explain, if I made a mistake). First, though, I'm going to give you my standard spiel about sources, because it seems to help people. You are trying to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards by showing good sources. These sources should meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). All interviews must automatically be rejected as sources of notability, because they're not independent, and that tends to throw people off. It probably seems a bit weird, but this is the consensus editors have come to over years and years of discussion.
So with that in mind, I'm going to look at your first few sources. If they fail any of the triple criteria in WP:42, they don't show notability. This doesn't mean you can't use them for uncontroversial information like his birthday or family's names - but if you can find better sources with the same information, you should use those instead. For a living person, you also need to abide by WP:BLP (biographies of living people rules) so I'll mention that if there's a problem as well.
Source 1, ADAC, is brief biodata - it's not significant coverage.
Source 2, Formula Scout, looks good at a glance - I think this meets WP:42. Good job!
Source 3, TKART, is basically a press release - it's not independent (his employer will naturally want to publicize him and make him sound great).
Source 4, ABS-CBN, is an interview with David - it's not independent.
Source 5, ADAC (the second), also includes an interview - this means it's also not independent.
Source 6, another Formula Scout, is not significant coverage - he's only very briefly mentioned.
Source 7, F4 Championship, specifically labels itself as a press release, so it's not independent.
I hope that helps you sort through the rest of your sources and decide which to keep and which to discard. Remember to prioritize sources that meet WP:42, and get rid of as many that don't as possible! Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help, I was actually unaware about the restrictions on how articles are considered independent. That makes a lot more sense. I'll work to try to find more independent articles that he is the subject of.
Two follow-up question though; I understand that I need to establish notability using independent sources, but am I able to use nonindependent sources for additional details and to help reinforce points? If so, is there a specific proportion of how many sources are needed to be considered notable? (I'm saying this because when looking at other motorsports articles, lots of them use these press release-esque sources. (again I know WP:OSE, just a good reference point for inspiration/precedence)).
Additionally, assuming I'm able to get the draft up to independent notable sourcing, will the AfD impact a future AfC? Just because of the low amount of time and how my declination was phrased, I don't think anyone would want to spend quite a bit of time improving the draft right now if it won't be usable for a couple months. Thank you in advance! GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can use non-independent sources for uncontroversial information that he would be the best source for - for example you could use interviews with him to confirm his birthday, parents' names, if he gets married, that kind of thing. Don't worry about using them to reinforce points, though; one good, reliable source saying something is better than a hundred weak sources. Try to minimise your sources, using only the best you can find while still following WP:BLP. If you can't find a WP:42-compliant source for a statement, remove that statement. It might make your draft shorter, but it will increase your chances of acceptance.
The AfD will make a difference - you will want to read over what people said there, and make sure your draft addresses those problems. It looks to me as though most people were concerned that he didn't meet WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, so your draft needs to have some good WP:42-compliant sources to show he's notable. That should be easy if you can find the sources - you already have one, which is a good start. We usually say three rock-solid sources is the absolute minimum, if that helps!
The other thing was the obvious conflict of interest - I have to ask, just to be sure: are you Zachary David, or connected to him? Or are you simply a fan of either him or racing in general? Even if you are him, or connected to him, you are still permitted to create this draft and put it through AfC! We actually encourage people with a conflict of interest to use AfC, so that there can be independent review of the draft before it goes live. If you are connected to him, you would need to declare your conflict of interest, and make sure the draft is good, but given that there was a previous AfD you already want to make sure it's good so that wouldn't be much of an extra weight on you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the first two; Got it, thank you. I'll be sure to work on that, and I've already started reviewing my sources. Before I submitted the draft I figured that too many sources would probably be better than too little, but I'm realizing now that it's not really the case.
As for the third point, I have no connection to him nor even a fan. I completely understand why you asked this given the history of the page and the fact my account is new, but it's simply that I noticed someone who doesn't have an article, and who could probably qualify for one. (if you want, you can look at my edit history - i've edited in american timezones and on days that hes raced).
I'll try to resolve the sourcing issues and resubmit it for review soon. Thank you for all the help, the way you've explained it actually makes sense. Apologizes if I sounded a little pushy in the original message, I was just getting a bit frustrated lol. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry at all, this can be a frustrating experience and you've taken feedback well and asked good questions - you're fine! If it helps, writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing one about a living person is the hardest of all. So don't be discouraged; it takes time to get the hang of Wikipedia policies and standards, but there are lots of people who are happy to help out. As long as you listen to advice and read through linked policies, you'll be all good.
I'm glad you understand why I had to ask if you were David - we're usually happy to trust people's word if their actions match up, and yours do. I appreciate you answering clearly and openly! If you need help with assessing sources, or other problems with your draft, just pop back here with questions - or you're welcome to reach me on my talk page if you'd like. There's always someone around to point you in the right direction. :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 3 November 2024 review of submission by NicePrettyFlower

[edit]

The article draft: Chop Kick Panda has been denied for creation because they were no referenced material. But they were actually links in the reference section. I think it is because I did not used the reference section properly. It is only because I am new to adding referenced material, so admin, fix the article draft and it's links in the reference section and then make it public. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I am trying to make it but I am new to it. I can't resubmit it now. What should I do. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it's the end of the line for this draft. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your experience is a common one for new editors who attempt the challenging task of creating an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. 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) 22:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bad news, I can no longer resubmit it. For more information, read the draft or read the latest message about the article on my talk page by @CoconutOctopus. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

[edit]

00:15, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Beezy Gh

[edit]

Can I get an assistance with this article I am working if review and guidelines may help but if you can also hop on too great Beezy Gh (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beezy Gh: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but this draft is pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 4 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:587:243D:C100:2122:B236:C5A6:F6B0

[edit]

Hello,

when I want to state that a main activity of one person is being a commentator on public issues by making frequent appearances as a guest on TV and radio programmes while also by witing frequently on news platforms:

is it ok if I use as a source his personal website, where all of that person's appearances and articles are concentrated?

while also referencing to a number of different platforms on which that person has appeared?

The logic of the question is that one cannot reference to every appearance or piece one has made or written, and since those can be found concentrated on one place, I should also add that place as well, even if it is that person's personal website, and then add a number of independent sources as indicative, since adding all of them would be impossible. 2A02:587:243D:C100:2122:B236:C5A6:F6B0 (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and no. You can use primary sources, such the subject's own website, for purely factual, non-contentious information. What that means in this context is, if they merely state that they've appeared as an expert on BBC and CNN, and link to those pieces, then that's fine. Whereas if they say they've appeared on 100+ TV programmes and written feature articles for every major newspaper, without supporting these claims with anything, then that's clearly not okay. Likewise, if they say they're the world's foremost expert on X and are in high demand by the greatest media outlets in the world, that's not factual, that's their opinion.
But as I said before, media appearances etc. do not make someone notable, so in that sense it's debatable what value such information would have, other than in promoting this person.
Please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

[edit]

I would like to create this page. Sunuraju (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunuraju, do you have a question we can help with? We know you'd like to create the page, since you've written a draft about it. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that since this page was created multiple times under many revisions and now deleted, I just would like permission to proceed with it. Is that ok? Sunuraju (talk) 07:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sunuraju: this title is protected, and a comment left by the protecting admin was that the protection can be lifted "when consensus is that draftspace article is ready". So far, this draft has been declined twice, therefore I would say there is currently no consensus that the article is ready for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. I understand that the draft has been declined twice, and I appreciate the feedback provided so far. If consensus hasn’t been reached on this version, would it be possible for me to create a fresh draft on the same topic? I’m committed to addressing any issues and making improvements to meet the standards required for publication.
Thank you. Sunuraju (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make changes to address the concerns, you should edit the existing draft and resubmit, you shouldn't create a new draft. 331dot (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Review of Draft: FAMM - Female Artists of the Mougins Museum

[edit]

I recently updated the draft titled “Female Artists of the Mougins Museum” for "FAMM - Female Artists of the Mougins Museum" and would appreciate if an editor could review it. The draft clarifies the title to make less ambiguous. I did not create a disambiguation page since there is no other article on wikipedia with the same name than mine. Can you give me your feedback and help me in the publication of this page on this museum ? Thank you for your assistance! Wikirobag (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikirobag: you have resubmitted Draft:Female Artists of the Mougins Museum and it will be reviewed once a reviewer picks it up. For future reference, please direct such questions to the help desk, WP:AFCHD. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409

[edit]

it is my request to approve my page ,as i m creating a page for an singer who deserve to have it's own wikipedia page Adityaksingh409 (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityaksingh409: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. There is hardly any meaningful content, and no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offered no independent reliable sources whatsoever, and gave no indication how this person meets the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adityaksingh409, your phrase that somebody "deserves to have [their] own wikipedia page" makes no sense except with the false assumption that a Wikipedia article is for the benefit of its subject. It is not, except incidentally. ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Jeffrey Barish

[edit]

All of the programs listed in tables at "Comparison of audio player software" provide links to pages with more information about the software. Accordingly, I created a page with information about Wax. It was rejected for lack of support by reliable sources. What are the reliable sources supporting the pages for other programs in the table, e.g., Exaile? I see "external links" to sources analogous to mine. Is it the reviews under "Notes" that provide the necessary reliability? Jeffrey Barish (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeffrey Barish: the Exaile article (to take your example) cite seven sources as references. Your draft cites (actually, not cites; only lists) one source.
The notability guideline WP:GNG explains what sort of sources we need to see to establish notability. If you find a few (3-5) such sources, summarise what they say about this subject, and cite each source against the information it has provided, that will give you the appropriate content as well as necessary referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Barish Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not yet dealt with by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about; there are many ways inappropriate articles can exist and go undetected, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Mdhor123

[edit]

Not sure why this keep getting rejected. It isn't a how-to guide, but an explanation of what the topic is. What can be done to get the article accepted? Mdhor123 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be done, it has been rejected. This isn't the place to offer PowerPoint usage tips. 331dot (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:44, 4 November 2024 review of submission by 141.155.162.213

[edit]

Well we added the sources about Not Quite Narwhal that's needs to be release on Wikipedia. So its that's not trouble to approve this page. 141.155.162.213 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Clioos

[edit]

I’m submitting my article Clioos (talk) 22:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 5

[edit]

06:17, 5 November 2024 review of submission by PDKB123

[edit]

Pcx1 Present is a rising artist, and the provided biographical information is accurate. Despite this, the article has not been approved. Could you please provide insight into the specific reasons for the disapproval? Ensuring that all information meets the required standards and guidelines, we seek to understand any necessary adjustments to facilitate the approval process. PDKB123 (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have a single, reliable, independent source that provides significant coverage of Pcx1 Present. The article is also written in an extremely promotional and has large sections that appear to be AI generated. There's nothing suitable here and it appears this article was written WP:BACKWARDS. If there is to be an article, it needs to start with what can be found in reliable sources not connected with Pcx1 Present in any way. That means no social media, no YouTube, no websites connected to Pcx1 Present, etc. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 5 November 2024 review of submission by AjayKumarLwym

[edit]

Hello,

I recently submitted an article draft titled "Refit Animal Care" to the Articles for Creation process, but it was unfortunately declined. I would like to understand the specific reasons for this decline so I can improve the article and resubmit it.

Any guidance or feedback regarding what changes or additional information might be needed would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance!

Best regards, Ajay Kumar AjayKumarLwym (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific reasons were quite clearly laid out. As it currently stands, the article is very poorly sourced, with the only sources listed being the company's website. Wikipedia has little interest in what a company says about itself, but about the company's significant coverage by independent, reliable sources say about the company. WP:ORGCRIT goes into this in more detail.
So if you want there to be an article, you need to show what reliable sources, independent of Refit, have to say about Refit. And if those sources are not to be found, then there's no article to write because this is the very basis for how Wikipedia is built. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:04, 5 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:908:1C24:5700:9F1:9E7E:9EA8:34BB

[edit]

Hello help desk team, I would like to ask you to take a look at the DIALux draft page (Draft:DIALux) Is this draft so bad that I no longer get a chance to improve it? It was finally rejected by a user who has since been blocked. The user behaved similarly with other articles and these were reset. Another user who looked at this is also currently being heavily criticized. Unfortunately, I still don't have a registered account. Is that a big problem? I would be very happy to continue working on it until it meets the requirements. Thanks a lot for your help! 2A02:908:1C24:5700:9F1:9E7E:9EA8:34BB (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post for proper display of the link to your draft(you had additional words in the link). The whole url is unnecessary when linking to a Wikipedia page as well.
Rejection does typically mean it won't be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the reviewers(which hasn't been done yet) you can come back and request that the community look at it(normally the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer, but as you note they are blocked).
The main issue is that the draft just documents the existence of the software and tells what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. For a product, that usually involves summarizing reviews by professional reviewers, not just documenting what it does and its uses. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:41, 5 November 2024 review of submission by Raedali1

[edit]

I will try my best to add information and sources so that this article is sufficient for anyone Raedali1 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. If you do that, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer and ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 5 November 2024 review of submission by Alex Sander Saravanan

[edit]

I create one wiki page but it's rejected so many time, i need to some one assist to finish this work Alex Sander Saravanan (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to solicit co-editors. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 5 November 2024 review of submission by Sanskarpulami

[edit]

it is my personal bio Sanskarpulami (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sanskarpulami, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a social media site like LinkedIn. We do not host "personal bios". Qcne (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was rejected (which means the end of the road) because it has no sources, and there is no indication that you meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or social media: it is an encyclopaedia, that contains neutral, well-sourced articles about notable topics.
In addition, writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:23, 5 November 2024 review of submission by Sivakumar.msat

[edit]

Subject: Response to Speedy Deletion Nomination for Draft G

Hello, and thank you for reviewing this draft.

I understand the concern regarding promotional content, and I am committed to revising it to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and encyclopedic standards. My goal is to create a factual, unbiased entry that highlights Sivakumar G’s contributions and relevance in his field.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

Extended content
Draft Content:

Sivakumar G

Born: June 1980 Nationality: Indian Occupation: CEO & Managing Director, AEITY Systems Pvt Ltd Education: MBA, Bachelor’s in Computers

Overview: Sivakumar G is an Indian entrepreneur and technology executive recognized for his contributions to software development, IT consulting, and digital transformation. He is the Founder and CEO of AEITY Systems Pvt Ltd, specializing in advanced software solutions. With over 22 years in the technology sector, he is noted for driving innovation and business growth.

Early Life and Education: Raised in Bangalore, Sivakumar completed his schooling at Sri Sathya Sai High School and earned a Bachelor’s in Computers from Sri Krishna Devaraya University, followed by an MBA from Sikkim Manipal University.

Career Highlights:

Early Career: Sivakumar began his career at the Social Welfare Department, later joining Wipro Technologies in quality assurance for embedded systems.

Notable Positions:

CEO, AEITY Systems: Founded AEITY Systems, focusing on software, AI, and cloud solutions. Senior Leader, Adobe (2014 - 2023): Led digital transformation initiatives and complex program management. SAP Test Manager, Sony Electronics (2012 - 2014): Managed ERP testing and quality assurance. Project Lead, Tech Mahindra (2011): Directed ERP testing for healthcare clients. System Engineer, IBM (2008 - 2011): Managed quality assurance in diverse projects. Skills: Digital Transformation, Business Strategy, Quality Engineering, ERP Management, AI Integration

Leadership at AEITY Systems: In 2023, Sivakumar founded AEITY Systems, quickly establishing it in software development with advancements in AI, machine learning, and blockchain.

Achievements and Recognition:

Product Launches: Successfully developed technology products. Industry Awards: Recipient of the CIO Award from Adobe. Mentorship: Actively mentors entrepreneurs and supports tech education. Personal Life: Based in Bangalore, Sivakumar engages in sports and community service activities, reflecting his commitment to personal and societal growth.

Conclusion: Sivakumar G continues to drive innovation at AEITY Systems, leveraging his experience to lead in digital transformation.

References:

[Add relevant references, articles, or publications here.]

Sivakumar.msat (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sivakumar.msat, Wikipedia does not host AI-generated spam articles. Your draft has been rejected, will not be considered further, and will soon be deleted. Qcne (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also don't host resumes. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 5 November 2024 review of submission by Pavolkrisko71

[edit]

Hi, I journalist I am asking You: Do You think is fair and legal that after every declining of the article I recieved email that if I pay assistence, all the problems will resolved? Isnt it called blackmailing?

Apart that the complaints are unfounded. Pavolkrisko71 (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Pavolkrisko71. Scam warning! There is a scam underway, targeting editors who attempt to publish Wikipedia article(s); see WP:SCAM for more information. If you have been approached by someone offering to create, accept or otherwise help publish an article in exchange for a payment, please e-mail the details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Qcne (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 5 November 2024 review of submission by Vijayadasa

[edit]

Seriously, is there any support system available? Here I am trying to record one of the missing films from some notable actors' filmography, and all I am getting are dismissive moves from other editors citing one reason or other - initially it was lack of sources; when I added enough sources, those references are dubbed as "only in passing", with additional accusations of plagiarism. If some editor bothers to look up the filmography of any of the major actors in the cast here, they can see that the Wikipedia pages most of the films listed there cite no more sources than what I have listed here. Some have even less. At this point, I am utterly at a loss to discern what to do to contribute to Wikipedia. Vijayadasa (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vijayadasa, your article was moved to draftspace on 27 October - it only had a single source to IMDb. You might not know, but Wikipedia does not consider IMDb a reliable source. We also want to see articles have multiple sources, usually more than three. It was correctly moved to draft.
The draft was then declined on 01 November as you had incorporated copyrighted material into the body of the text. Copyright violations puts the entire project at risk of litigation, and therefore we speedily remove suspected copyrighted text and remove the trace of it from the article history. By default, unless specifically said otherwise, assume all text you find on the internet is copyrighted.
So, I only see two incidents of other editors contributing to the draft, and both times they acted correctly.
It might be worth reading our notability guidelines on films. In essence we are looking for significant coverage with review, discussion, analysis, commentary, etc of the film in multiple reliable, independent sources. Not interviews with the cast or crew (as that wouldn't be independent), not forums or random blogs (as that wouldn't be reliable), and not very brief mentions (as that wouldn't be significant coverage).
Lets go through your sources:
  1. A listing, no significant coverage.
  2. As above.
  3. This states it is a film review, but it's mostly just a plot re-cap so doesn't provide that independent commentary.
  4. A listing, no significant coverage.
  5. As above.
So, none of your sources really work for this article.
If you can find at least three film reviews from mainstream film review journalists, then you might have a viable article.
Hope that helps. Qcne (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of thanks for the detailed response. I accept the point about plagiarism, and it is totally possible to add a plot without plagiarism if only the article would be accepted. But regarding sources, these are the only kind of sources available for any of the films from this industry from that period. It can be seen that the references and sources for any of the films listed in the filmography of the actors in this film are even more scantier than this. The one solid source, 3, you say is mostly just a plot re-cap. None of the films from that era and class are likely to have more significant coverage than this. As such I don't know what to do. If at all this is how we do it, how is it that all those other films have Wikipedia pages with even less sources? Vijayadasa (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Wikipedia has millions of articles, many tens of thousands of which are poor quality. As we're a volunteer project no editor has gotten around to improving or deleting them yet. Our standards have also increased over the two decades Wikipedia has existed, so what may have been acceptable then may not be now.
If those are the only sources available, then it doesn't seem like this is a notable film. If it helps sources can be offline (print newspapers, books etc)? As long as they are published and you provide a full reference. Qcne (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vijayadasa If you want to help us, please identify these other articles "with fewer sources" you have seen so action can be taken. We're only as good as the people who choose to participate. The more participants, the quicker we can weed out inappropriate articles so people like you don't see them. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 5 November 2024 review of submission by MrBumpTiger

[edit]

Hi. I am a photographer by the name Alastair Philip Wiper. I disclosed a conflict of interest and submitted a page about myself to Articles for Creation at: Draft:Alastair Philip Wiper. AfC reviewer @Ktkvtsh: said I was not allowed to write an article about myself and I should abandon the submission. This is confusing, because I thought I was following proper procedure by disclosing and submitting to AfC for independent review against the Wikipedia:PHOTOGRAPHER criteria. Hoping somebody here will illuminate things for me. MrBumpTiger (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrBumpTiger: While it isn't strictly speaking forbidden, we take a very dim view on autobiographies because, like most other conflict-of-interest editing, it's next to impossible to remain neutral about oneself. Indeed, the reviewers note it sounds promotional. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrBumpTiger: I will also have a look at your sources. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Does this help on the sourcing front? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not absolutely forbidden for people to write about themselves, but it is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. For those who wish to attempt it despite this guidance, it is the proper procedure to submit a draft. However, our experience is that very, very few people are able to set aside what they know about themselves and summarize what independent reliable sources say about them with a neutral point of view. People naturally write favorably about themselves. We want to know what others say about you, not what you say about yourself. I personally have never seen someone successfully write about themselves here, though I'm sure it's happened- it's very rare. Are you one of the few people who can succeed at it? Maybe, but the odds are against it. 331dot (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 5 November 2024 review of submission by Clioos

[edit]

help Clioos (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't specify the help you are seeking, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 6

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1255663968"