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


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]

03:23, 6 November 2024 review of submission by 47.237.131.47

[edit]

Sorry, can you please explain why applied cryptography topics such as provably fair and Bitzino are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia? 47.237.131.47 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much of your sources are actually about Bitzino? Also, WP:GS/CRYPTO is still a thing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:59, 6 November 2024 review of submission by Zhiminy

[edit]

Thanks for your feedback.

I am wondering what types of materials are needed to be included in wikipedia since this character's PhD student - Foutse Khomh is also listed in wikipedia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foutse_Khomh. Thus, I think he might deserve a wikipedia page based on his contributions to software engineering in the last few decades, particularly he pioneered and recreated the domain of mining software repositories, as found in another wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_software_repositories. Zhiminy (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhiminy: I would say there's a good likelihood this would be acceptable; please submit it for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, take that back – seems this has been reviewed several times already, and rejected. (Please don't remove AfC templates from earlier reviews.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok, but this is the recent conversation happening in the wikipedia-en-help. Someone mentions it is worth a wikipage and I have fixed the issues accordingly. Zhiminy (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think there is something missing? Zhiminy (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zhiminy: The draft has not changed since it was rejected yesterday except for the removal of one sentence ([1] current version compared to rejected version)), so the same objections still apply. Rejection means that the draft can no longer be resubmitted. Reviewers can only evaluate the draft as-is, not based on what someone may have said in a different help forum. If Hassan was the PhD supervisor of somebody who has since become notable, that has no bearing on Hassan's notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the background to this, so may well be poking something that shouldn't be poked, but: a Fellow of IEEE and ACM, recipient of the Mustafa Prize, with h-index of 101... if I came across this draft, I'd pretty much accept it without second thought. What am I missing? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I had a similar reaction, so asked the rejecting reviewer on their talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 11:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing. This guy is obviously notable. -- asilvering (talk) 06:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:39, 6 November 2024 review of submission by Zhiminy

[edit]

Anything else that are needed from my side? Zhiminy (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhiminy: Please don't start new threads about the same submission unless the previous thread has been archived. I have changed the heading for this section to combine it with your previous thread. --bonadea contributions talk 10:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 6 November 2024 review of submission by MarsLbee

[edit]

Why exactly was my article declined? Is it too short or do I have to refer to more sources? I have tried making edits but it didn't work. I am open to suggestions to get the article published since I believe this person is becoming more and more important. He and his Company also appear in other Wikipedia pages. Can it help to refer to them too? MarsLbee (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft does little more than document this person's work. It doesn't summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how he is a notable person. You seem to be saying that he's notable because he makes guitars for notable people; notability is not inherited by association. If you have sources that describe why notable people choose to purchase his guitars, that would help.
That he is mentioned in other articles contributes nothing to notability. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 6 November 2024 review of submission by LL1ghtOfHeaveNN

[edit]

Hello, I had my submission rejected to have a page up about a game: MagicCraft I provided independent article that actually shows objective opinion on the game as it also highlights its weaknesses. What can I do to improve the article and be listed? thank you LL1ghtOfHeaveNN (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LL1ghtOfHeaveNN I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion when linking to it. Your draft does little more than say it is available on Steam and describing the game. It needs to summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the game, showing how it is notable. For games that usually involves reviews by professional reviewers. You say you have one, but I don't see it in the draft. One wouldn't be enough anyway. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:07, 6 November 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409

[edit]

I Created this Page for an indian musical artist named alfaaz and i want to be published this page as everyone contribute to this page for page betterment as this page deserves to published and some lime time for others to contribute to this page as a support to the artist Adityaksingh409 (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityaksingh409: please see the responses you received about this draft, in your thread above (Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#16:03, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Adityaksingh409). ––bonadea contributions talk 11:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 6 November 2024 review of submission by Kkkksuraj

[edit]

Why this article is not appearing in Google search? Kkkksuraj (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kkkksuraj: I've no idea. Whether and when search engines index our pages is up to them. All we can do is publish the page and allow indexing (which is the case here), they will then index it as and when. Given that this is a new article, it probably just takes a bit more time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 6 November 2024 review of submission by Charlieevo2001

[edit]

I'm looking for help here as I'm unsure what extra references we can add to make this more reliable.

Any advice Charlieevo2001 (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlieevo2001: the sources cited in this draft don't show that the subject is notable. We need to see multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources meets this standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Charlieevo2001. It's not a matter of making the draft more reliable. It's a matter of establishing that there is enough independent reliable sources available to base a Wikipedia article on - remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.
See also WP:AMOUNT. ColinFine (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 6 November 2024 review of submission by Bolutemi

[edit]

Hello, I wrote an article about a Nigerian Politician which has a significant number of coverage which in most cases were negative and I wrote everything exactly as were reported on various blogs. It has been deemed not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, how do I make the article improve to be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia? Bolutemi (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolutemi: given that Mustapha Salihu is the version in the main article space, and has been taken to AfD for discussion to determine its future, that is the version you want to be editing if you wish to improve its prospects. The draft you're pointing to is effectively redundant now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this. I wrote the Draft:Mustapha Salihu first which felt like it was never properly reviewed but was always declined almost immediately I submitted for review. Then went on to write the aticle Mustapha Salihu, which I have no idea how it's gotten to the main space, I never got to submit for review, the button to click "sumbit' wasn't provided when i was done writing. Then I return back to the draft that's always been declined to see if I could improve it. How are they getting to review the Mustapha Salihu article which I never had the chance to 'submit' for review at all after I was done writing? Bolutemi (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolutemi: Draft:Mustapha Salihu was reviewed seven times, by six different reviewers – are you saying these reviews were never carried out "properly"? That's quite a claim; presumably you have solid evidence to back this up?
And Mustapha Salihu got into the main space because you created it directly there. I presume that was the final draw, which then caused the earlier draft to be rejected outright.
Anyway, this is no longer an AfC matter, since the article has been published and remains (for now) live. If you wish to take part in the AfD discussion, you can do so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustapha Salihu. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm in no way saying the reviews were never carried out correctly. I apologize if the tone of my statement conveyed that claim. What I meant was that all my submissions were declined based on not being sufficiently notable, even after I provided more references to prove the subject's notability. I'm simply trying to understand what more I can provide to demonstrate the subject's significance. I included 17 references in the article, so I'm seeking insights into how I can further strengthen the case for notability. Bolutemi (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolutemi: I'm baffled why you felt the need to recreate this in the main article space when you had been repeatedly told there was insufficient evidence of notability, but I guess you must do what you think is right.
Notability doesn't depend on the quantity of sources, but rather their quality; 17 flaky sources won't establish notability, but three solid ones will. If this person hasn't been elected to a national or state level legislative assembly, he won't qualify automatically under WP:NPOL. You therefore need to find three sources that clearly and indisputably satisfy the WP:GNG standard. Importantly, they must provide significant coverage of this person, whereas most of the sources in this article seem to deal with his suspension and related matters. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know i was creating the article in the mainspace. The draft i submitted for review was nominated for deletion at the time, prompting me to conduct further research. I discovered additional coverage from independent blogs that were not related to his suspension from office. I updated the draft with this new information, but it was subsequently deleted. I tried searching for the draft so i could re-edit but was unable to find it then I searched for the subject on Wikipedia. The search results indicated that no article existed for the topic. Wikipedia suggested that I create a new article about Mustapha Salihu. I clicked the name after Wikepedia suggested i write on what i searched for (mind you this was the same process on how i started the draft article so i didn't expect anything to be different), I wasn't expecting anything to be different, I expected to get the 'submit' button after i was done writing so it would be reviewed. As a new Wikipedia contributor, I may have made some mistakes during this process. I assure you that I did not intentionally publish the article in the mainspace Bolutemi (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. That's not the timeline I'm seeing, but never mind that. Going forward, if you wish to save the published article, you need to take part in the ongoing AfD discussion; no good will come of discussing it here now that it's out of our hands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bolutemi you will wish to make a policy based argument to keep the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mustapha Salihu. All the discussion above this is now in the past. We need to deal with the present. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:26, 6 November 2024 review of submission by PoetMsabid

[edit]

hi i am a writer and i want to create a page on Wikipedia i don't know why i rejected PoetMsabid (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PoetMsabid Wikipedia is not social media. WIth the greatest respect, it has no interest in the desire to publicise yourself. What you need is a web site, or a social media site. In a Wikipedia sense you lack notability. You cannot pass WP:NPOET, or you dd not show yourself to pass it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, and I already have a profile on Google and other platforms. I've been working in this field for 20 years, and many singers have performed my songs. I’m interested in creating a biography on Wikipedia—not as a form of social media, but to document my contributions and work in poetry and songwriting. PoetMsabid (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PoetMsabid, I think you are missing the point. You don't pass WP:NPOET, it seems, which explains why your draft was rejected. You can not use this platform to document your contributions; that's what a web hosting platform is for. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to revise the draft to ensure it includes reliable, independent sources that demonstrate my work's impact. If there are specific criteria or types of sources you would recommend focusing on, please let me know. Thank you for your guidance. PoetMsabid (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PoetMsabid Revise the draft with pleasure. I will talk to you about sources on your talk page 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your I’ll get started on revising the draft. I'll make sure to include any relevant sources that establish notability. I’ll look forward to discussing it with you further on my talk page. PoetMsabid (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

[edit]

04:38, 7 November 2024 review of submission by DebugDruid

[edit]

It was stated that the Cranbourne West Secondary College page submission was declined due to it not being suitable regarding "What Wikipedia is not".

Can I please get assistance in understanding what specific reason the page violates from this and help in improving/editing the draft so that it can be suitable for draft submission. DebugDruid (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DebugDruid: this draft reads like a brochure of the school, quite promotional in both tone and content. And it is completely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. You need to find some sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, summarise what they have said about this school, and cite each of them agains the information it has provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing thank you for your response! Based on the feedback provided, I have updated the draft. Is it possible for you to have a look at the updated version and let me know if it meets the WP:GNG standard and complies with the Notability policy. Thank you! DebugDruid (talk) 04:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid not, @DebugDruid. Two of your sources (1 and 3) are not independent, and 3 does not have significant coverage of the school. I suspect that 2 also doesn't have significant coverage either, judging by its title, but I haven't looked behind the paywall. Even if it does, one source is not enough.
The first step in writing a Wikipedia article is to find several (usually, at least three) sources which meet all three of the criteria in WP:42: reliable, independent, and with significant coverage.
There are two reasons which this should be the first step. The first is that if you cannot find such sources, you know that the subject is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possible. The second is that if you can find such sources then they (and almost nothing else) should be what the article is based on. 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) 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 7 November 2024 review of submission by Vinay8179

[edit]

Hello There My page creation was rejected without any reason. I do promotions for the movie in digital platforms, as a part of promotions i tried to create wikipedia page and it is asked to delete.Please allow me to create a new page for the movie i am working on Vinay8179 (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, for obvious reasons. -- asilvering (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:50, 7 November 2024 review of submission by LL1ghtOfHeaveNN

[edit]

Hello, why can I not create a wikipedia page about MagicCraft as a web3 company? What is missing ? Thank you LL1ghtOfHeaveNN (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LL1ghtOfHeaveNN: you're missing any evidence that the company is notable. See WP:NCORP, which tells you what evidence we need. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LL1ght of HeaveNN: Also note that web3 in general is under a community sanctions regime. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:44, 7 November 2024 review of submission by Saif0386

[edit]

why my article is declined Saif0386 (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your post for proper display; the whole url is not needed. The reason for the decline was left by the reviewers, this person does not meet the definition of a notable politician. Local officials rarely do. If he is notable for something other than being a politician, you could assert that they meet the broader notable person definition, but that requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources as to what makes him notable. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 7 November 2024 review of submission by Justina1111

[edit]

Hi,

I have just submitted an article for review in Lithuanian wiki. Your editor is asking to provide resources for verification. However, the article is about my family and I have uploaded a tombstone of the person, I believe it should be enough to verify. I am providing personal memories and pictures of a Lithuanian Noble family member.

Please kindly advise if you can approve personal records.

Thank you and best regards, Justina Justina1111 (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to the Lithuanian Wikipedia with this, we cannot help you with submitting it there. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Justina1111: this is the English-language Wikipedia. If you wish to submit a draft to our Lithuanian sister project, go to https://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/ -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to translate it into English, a photo of a tombstone is insufficient. You need to summarize what independent reliable sources say about them, showing how they are a notable person. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 7 November 2024 review of submission by Vlklng

[edit]

I want this article to be rated before I actually get it reviewed, the 2024 election has pretty much ended and I have wrote a new 2028 election article with help from another draft of it. Vlklng (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vlklng: we don't do on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk. Also just FYI, you may want to be aware of an earlier version Draft:2028 United States presidential election which was recently discussed at the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I’m sorry this is my first time posting a full article. Vlklng (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 7 November 2024 review of submission by Zafarquetta

[edit]

we don't know what is missing in this ? can u please clearify ? Zafarquetta (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for this newspaper, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You do not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage that show how the newspaper meets the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 7 November 2024 review of submission by 193.74.242.230

[edit]

The draft Draft:Forum:Gym is marked by extended confirmed protection 193.74.242.230 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The page has never been protected. What it has been is rejected, with no chance of being considered further as incompatible with our mission as an encyclopaedia. (I'm also very certain we have an article on the subject.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please Mcmatter, wait until the page is for extended confirmed protected 193.74.242.230 (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what that even means. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They just removed the AfC rejections and added a protection-notice template as if that would protect the page. I think this is a WP:NOTHERE situation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:10, 7 November 2024 review of submission by Adluvbasketball

[edit]

Hello, I asking for advice on how to get this page approved. I did change the tone of the original article but it was side I didn't. Please tell me what is wrong with the article! Adluvbasketball (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adluvbasketball Rejection typically means that a draft will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of the reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly.
I see that you claim to personally own the copyright to the logo and to have personally created it. Please formally disclose your relationship with the league, see conflict of interest and paid editing("paid editing" includes employment). 331dot (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now see on your user talk page that you are editing for the Commissioner of the league; you said you were going to disclose this, but I don't see where you did(maybe I missed it). Did you personally create the logo, though? 331dot (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 7 November 2024 review of submission by BonnieGames 132

[edit]

Pls upload my thing BonnieGames 132 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, sorry. 331dot (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 7 November 2024 review of submission by 175.157.168.222

[edit]

what are the problems 

175.157.168.222 (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. qcne (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 7 November 2024 review of submission by Basraharpreet

[edit]

What can I do to meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements for my website? Basraharpreet (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, you must disclose your relationship with your site, see WP:COI.
You can hope that independent reliable sources take note of your website and choose to write about it, showing how it is a notable website as Wikipedia defines one. You can't force this issue. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 7 November 2024 review of submission by 142.3.32.138

[edit]

I wish to know what makes this article not qualified for Wikipedia. As we have adhered to the four criteria. It is an in-depth article that is backed by secondary sources. these sources are reliable as they are published journals and news outlets. This is an independent subject as it is referring a health unit that is within a credible, world renown University. Any help will be appriciated.

Thanks 142.3.32.138 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" I assume you represent this clinic; please see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
The draft reads as if it were on the clinic website; telling its own history and offerings. It doesn't summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the clinic, showing how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 8

[edit]

04:39, 8 November 2024 review of submission by UmIgu

[edit]

I am editing this article but it has been rejected several times. I would like to get more specific advice on how I can make the article meet the requirement. UmIgu (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UmIgu: this draft (not yet 'article') has been declined (not 'rejected') because it does not show that the subject is notable in the Wikipedia sense. We need to see significant coverage of this company, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other). Press releases, routine business reporting, and primary sources do not count. Please study the relevant notability guideline WP:NCORP which explains this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for you advice. I will check it out. UmIgu (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Jharna Choudhury

[edit]

Kindly help regarding proper referencing of living artist. Jharna Choudhury (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jharna Choudhury: you can find advice on referencing at WP:REFB. Although looking at the sources in this draft, many of them are pretty useless, so you may also want to look at WP:GNG for advice on what sort of sources we want to see.
Having said all of which, this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. At least not until and unless you can produce much stronger sources demonstrating notability, as well as supporting the draft content with appropriate referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:30, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Benjphelps

[edit]

Hello,

I tried to find and link as many sources as possible in the references section. Is the problem that I didn't use the cite tool to link the sources correctly, or are my sources in the references section just insufficient? There's a Chinese-language page for the game, so I could link the sources it has, but the challenge there is that I don't read Chinese, so I would be using imprecise translation tools to read and link those articles.

Thanks, Ben Benjphelps (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjphelps: at least some of your sources (TV Tropes, Fandom, Steam Store) are not reliable or otherwise useful. Also, while it isn't strictly speaking mandatory to use inline citations, it would certainly help the reviewers understand where each bit of the information has come from so that it can be verified. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing using this method. Note also that simply 'linking' sources serves at best limited purpose, if they don't actually support the information in the draft; Wikipedia articles should be primarily composed by summarising what reliable sources have previously said about a subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Aston3421

[edit]

Hello I am working on a draft article and would like to have some help. Could anyone offer me any guidance or help writing it? Aston3421 (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aston3421: can you be more specific, please; what guidance do you need? This draft was declined for insufficient evidence of notability. You need to show that the subject satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NARTIST notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 8 November 2024 review of submission by AkiyamaKana

[edit]

I would like to ask if the sources in the article are sufficient (in quality) enough to continue with it? A user in the Teahouse live chat said its sources were average, but I'd like a second check to make sure it's okay. I'm having a hard time figuring out what to put in the article as well, but I'd like to know whether it would ever pass notability tests before I try that. Thank you in advance. AkiyamaKana (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Bunnypranav

[edit]

I have recently accepted this draft, but it has shot me by tagging the page with a couple of page abbreviation errors. I do not know much about ISO 4 or infoboxes, would like some assistance on fixing it. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Vijaysharma1231

[edit]

New to Wikipedia Vijaysharma1231 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vijaysharma1231: that's not a question; did you have one in mind you wanted to ask? Your draft has been rejected as not demonstrating sufficient notability to be included in the encyclopaedia.
I also queried your relationship with this subject earlier, but you don't appear to have responded to that. Could you do that now, please. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:11, 8 November 2024 review of submission by BonnieGames 132

[edit]

Please upload my artical. BonnieGames 132 (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BonnieGames 132, I am afraid that will not be happening. You are not notable enough to merit an article. qcne (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 8 November 2024 review of submission by Kelmo24

[edit]

Hello! Not seeing an Edit tab on the draft when I log in, only Edit Source. Kelmo24 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelmo24 This is not a tech Helpdesk. WP:TEAHOUSE may serve you better. In the meantime save your work and quit and restart your browser, which may help 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:24, 8 November 2024 review of submission by E-Logical Wiki

[edit]

We received a notice that our draft was declined and a link to WP:NOTWEBHOST. I don't understand how the draft falls into the category of a blog, file hosting, social page, or a memorial. The page was intended to document and provide people with remaining information on The E-Logical Cinematic Universe. The creator isn't dead, nor is the project. Judging by the "CAMS" video, the creator is beginning the project's "second take". What currently sits on the page is the creator's own words and firsthand sources collected from people who discovered the cinematic universe prior to its presence being removed off the internet, such as screenshots and retellings of events. Once more content as part of the cinematic universe is released, we plan on moving what currently resides on the main part of the page to a section about its history. In the meantime, some help editing the page would be appreciated so that it doesn't get declined again. The team of 5 people behind this account all believe in the preservation of history. Whether it be accurate documentation of important events, cut content from video-games, and everything else in between. The CAMS video showed up on a few of our recommended pages on YouTube and we all freaked out because this project we all fell in love with and feel strongly about is finally coming back! We wanted to share information about it on Wikipedia for everyone to see, since it's kind of a hidden gem on the internet. E-Logical Wiki (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@E-Logical Wiki Before discussing anything else, it is a requirement here that one user has one account. Five users may not all use the same account. Each of you must register independently. The user name that you have chosen is inappropriate in that it represents The E-Logical Cinematic Universe, and you should apply to change it. You also have a WP:COI, potentially WP:PAID applies. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@E-Logical Wiki I have looked at the draft. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to tell the world about the many terrible misfortunes that have befallen an entity you have a conflict of interest with. WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. This was a correct review and rejection.
Your user talk page now contains more information about the username, COI and paid editing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I'd like to disclose that I and anyone else who is part of the draft have no relation with the creator, nor was anyone paid to make this. Upon reading the wording in the draft, the soapbox description seems accurate. However, it's a little hard not to sound like I'm lamenting the unfortunate events tied to the project when the limited history available is kind of rocky. As for the user name, how do I apply to have it changed? Thanks in advance! E-Logical Wiki (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@E-Logical Wiki, there's instructions on your talk page about how to have the name changed - and for clarity, if each of you wants to edit Wikipedia that's fine, you can each have an account. You don't need to use your real names, as you can see from the responses here, but you do need to avoid sharing an account.
If you want to have an article on this project, your first step is going to be finding sources that 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). It's possible that the project hasn't yet gotten enough attention to have these sources - this happens a lot! We have a whole essay on it, WP:TOOSOON. If you believe that in time the project will become noticed by other people, and written about by them, you can keep your draft active by making an edit every five months. It doesn't need to be a big edit; you could add a space, for example. Keep an eye out for reliable sources, and bide your time. There's no rush, and no deadline here; we're pretty confident Wikipedia will be around for a while. When the sources appear, you can update your draft and hopefully have an article. I hope that helps you all, and wish you happy editing in the meantime! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

[edit]

00:17, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Kitty Catania

[edit]

Preciso que minha página seja aceita, mas não consigo achar fontes que agradem aos adms. Kitty Catania (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All translations below are Google; I only speak English.
Please write in English so we can understand you. Por favor, escreva em inglês para que possamos entendê-lo.
Google says the question is 'I need my page to be accepted, but I can't find sources that the admins like'. Admins are not the ones reviewing your draft; we are all just volunteer editors here. You need to find sources that fit the criteria of 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). At the moment you only have one source, and it is not reliable. It only talks about Eco Goth as it relates to Scooby-Doo. Most of your draft is not supported by references. Since the draft has been rejected, this means it is time to give up unless you want to delete everything and start again.
If you are more comfortable writing in what Google says is Portuguese, maybe you would find it easier to contribute to the Portuguese Wikipedia? You are welcome to stay here on the English Wikipedia if you prefer it here, but please write in English here so we can all understand what you are saying. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kitty Catania: Your only sources are a work of fiction and Researchgate, which we do not consider to be reliable sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Zyahiaoui

[edit]

this is my son i can submit all proof for it how i can submit again Zyahiaoui (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zyahiaoui it is strongly discouraged to write about someone you personally know, such as your son. The draft is unsourced and promotional. Please read Help:Your first article before proceeding. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:27, 9 November 2024 review of submission by 112.134.170.36

[edit]

I have not been able to find any information on Surgeons in Sri Lanka with their email address 112.134.170.36 (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the help desk for AfC submissions only. Please use the reference desk or Google search for non Wikipedia-related questions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Bhtriv

[edit]

why Bhtriv (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bhtriv to quote a fellow reviewer, no sources, no article, no debate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bhtriv: Not only that, but a one-sentence "article" is practically useless to your average reader. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 9 November 2024 review of submission by TheDataDiver

[edit]

my topic was different and not covered TheDataDiver (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheDataDiver I'm not really seeing how it is different. Even if it is, I suggest that you improve that article first, then make an argument on its talk page for it to be split. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDataDiver: how is it different? Your draft lists three types, which are covered (it seems to me) in the three articles Hormone replacement therapy, Androgen replacement therapy, and Gender-affirming hormone therapy, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok i can understand but wikipedia allow me to write on this topic thats why I am consufed nothing eles and am newcomer to this platform anyway thank you for your reply TheDataDiver (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheDataDiver Before writing a new article, you should check to see that one does not already exist. You are welcome to contribute any missing information to an existing article. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 9 November 2024 review of submission by Peter Kelford

[edit]

Rejection for lack of reliable sources - I'm looking for any ideas/suggestions for the kinds of sources that might be appropriate? Peter Kelford (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Kelford: We don't cite ResearchGate (no editorial oversight), any sort of social media (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject), anything the subject themselves writes (connexion to subject), or court cases (gov't document) for notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well Dr Netolitzky meets the academics' notability criteria: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#General notes
  1. He has a KC (King's Counsel), which is a selective and prestigious professional award;
  2. He is widely cited, as demonstrated (I can add some more academic citations if wanted but in the legal sector citation by courts is often viewed as more prestigious than academic citation)
Would I be correct in surmising that providing more examples of him being cited in academia would suffice to demonstrate notability? Or is there a specific way of doing it? Peter Kelford (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge practicing lawyers/barristers do not fall under WP:NACADEMIC. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1256393355"