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 15

[edit]

04:22, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Mindfield1979

[edit]

There is no reliable source for the age listed. Born: 1979 (age 45 years). It is an error. Please delete. Mindfield1979 (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindfield1979: you are perfectly capable of editing that article yourself, as indeed you have done. Besides, this is not an AfC matter, since the article was published well over a year ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The innacurate information about the age still display after edits. Can you delete? " Adeola Akinremi is a Nigerian-American journalist, entrepreneur, columnist, policy advisor and International development professional who currently serves as a consultant for the World Bank Group. He served as a U.S correspondent, editor and columnist at This Day newspaper. Wikipedia
Born: 1979 (age 45 years)" Mindfield1979 (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Changling Xu (SLU)

[edit]

I created a sandbox about fibreboard recycling, which was declined after about 30 minutes I submitted it for review. I appreciated the fast response, but I cannot see the reply why it is decline. Changling Xu (SLU) (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's my fault. I found the reasons. Changling Xu (SLU) (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Riche Richard

[edit]

how can i improve? Riche Richard (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riche Richard: there is no evidence that this person is notable. You need to provide evidence that they meet either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:52, 15 November 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8300:8E30:B44C:DCB4:8164:B7AA

[edit]

I want to know what can I remove or improve of this draft article. I do feel like this subject has notability for Wikipedia article. And have add WP:Three on draft talk page if anyone wants to check on their own time. 2601:201:8300:8E30:B44C:DCB4:8164:B7AA (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has not yet been submitted for a review, you need to click the "Submit your draft for review!" button in the box at the top; if you submit it, a reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks! i will. 2601:201:8300:8E30:B44C:DCB4:8164:B7AA (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:25, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Gerald Bergstein

[edit]

There are no references, because this person is anonymous, it does not promote anything. Other than just speaking fondly of the persons Forex trading capability. Gerald Bergstein (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Bergstein It's total spam and will soon be deleted. qcne (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not even biased, I do not understand this judgement. He is simply apart of the LGBTQ community and is clearing facing critism for this. I cannot comprehend how in 2024 people are still facing critism for life choices, please leave discrimination to yourself not to others. Gerald Bergstein (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Bergstein I am literally a gay man. qcne (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well if that is the case could I know how I could improve the bilbiography of this person, in order to publish this, also additional question how do I add images to an article. Gerald Bergstein (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been deleted as spam, @Gerald Bergstein. If you wanted to start again with the draft you need to very carefully read Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Wikipedia only hosts articles about topics that pass our notability criteria. If there are no reliable, published, secondary sources about this person then he does not pass the notability criteria, and there can not be an article. qcne (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this isn't the place to speak fondly of anything, that's what social media is for. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a distinct hoaxy whiff about this, if you ask me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Aleksboch

[edit]

Which sections need citation to satisfy that this information about the Hall is accurate and truthful? Aleksboch (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aleksboch, we generally require at least three independent sources that discuss the Hall in depth and in detail, in order to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. qcne (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Aleksboch. The problem is 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.
Writing an article starts by finding several sources, each of which is reliably published, isindependent of the subject, and contains significant coverage of the subject. If you an't find several such sources, the subject is almost certainly not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and no article is possbile. See WP:42 ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Nickpetersen2023

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to ask for help publishing my article about "Register.BG". The company is popular in Bulgaria and it is the top level domain registry in the country. The company has its roots from the late 1980s and it has a rich history in contribution of the development the internet society. I added all possible references that I found online, however the page publication was denied. Can you please give me an advice what else i can do to have this page accepted.

Kind Regards! Nick Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nickpetersen2023, we require independent sources (generally at least three) that discuss the company in significant detail. Wikipedia isn't interested in sources that just state the company exists without any analysis/discussion. It looks like most of your sources are just about the TLD process without any that discuss the company itself?
If those are the only sources that exist, then I am afraid an article wouldn't be possible at this time. If it helps, sources can also be offline (i.e. books or newspapers), as long as they have been published. qcne (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
Some of the sources are very credible including the ones from IANA (www.iana.org) and ICANN (www.icann.org). ICANN is a well known non-profit organization selected by the US government to manage and develop the internet zone. IANA is a US government agency to manage the internet root zone.
In all these references there is an information that the company Register.BG is assigned to be a public top level domain registry for the country of Bulgaria.
Having in mind the credibility of the sources what else we can do to publish the page.
Kind Regards! Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 15:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nickpetersen2023, I don't disagree the sources you have used aren't credible. They are. That's not the issue here. The issue is the sources don't devote significant coverage to the company. qcne (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have just updated the page by adding additional references. Can you please take a look at the most recent edit and give us your opinion if the page now can be approved? Your help is greatly appreciated!!
Thanks,
Nick Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three new sources you added are just database listings, and don't provide that significant coverage of the company. qcne (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References 1,5 and 8 are not a database listings.
Regards,
Nick Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - was looking at the previous version.
  1. 1: icannwiki.org: Can't be used, a user generated Wiki.
  2. 5: ruskov-law.eu: Mentions the company once, briefly. Not significant coverage.
  3. 8 register.bg: The companies website, not independent.
qcne (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nickpetersen2023, you might find WP:42 helpful - it lays out what you need in your sources. All three criteria must be met for a source to be useful to you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help.
Here are the latest links that I found and added in the draft:
Position 1: "Register.BG - Registration and use of domain names at ccTLD registry"
Position 10: "Bulgaria Internet Company Launches Domain Names in Cyrillic - Novinite.com - Sofia News Agency".

Postion 3 (previously added):
"Domain Registration and Transfer - SuperHosting"

Can you please take a look when you have time and say if the 3 sources are acceptable?
Best Regards,
Nick Nickpetersen2023 (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:21:27, 15 November 2024 review of submission by EarthDude

[edit]


Hello! The given draft's application was rejected for not being notable enough, so I have added a lot more information alongside reliable, secondary citations, independent of the subject. Reading the entire article, I am pretty sure the notability is getting across EarthDude (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it for a review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Photoplayweb

[edit]

why was this draft rejected Photoplayweb (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an advert, @Photoplayweb. Wikipedia does not host adverts. qcne (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 15 November 2024 review of submission by 193.74.242.230

[edit]

Please do not touch this page and do not remove! 193.74.242.230 (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, its prohibited to delete the page as well, the page is imaginary draft not for speedy deletion 193.74.242.230 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to dictate terms, especially if the draft would violate our policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 15 November 2024 review of submission by Mahmoudali123

[edit]

Hi Bonadea,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I see that the topic was not considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Could you provide more details on what aspects can be improved to make the topic eligible for inclusion?

I appreciate your help and guidance.

Thank you very much, Mahmoudali123 (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mahmoudali123. If those are the only sources that you have about Luca then there is nothing more you can do: we cannot create notability out of nowhere. qcne (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

[edit]

05:09, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Clarkien03

[edit]

World needs this article. Clarkien03 (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox deleted and OP indef'ed NOTHERE. Meters (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:29, 16 November 2024 review of submission by 103.92.154.152

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hakikur_Rahman

Appreciate assistance in improving the draft as per Wiki guideline.

Thanks and regards, 

103.92.154.152 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more specific, what assistance are you requesting? This draft was declined for lack of notability, so that is what you need to focus on trying to demonstrate (either by WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However, we have provided several external and independent references. How do we focus on notability aspect? Hakiks070 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hakiks070: the sources you're citing are a mix of primary sources, passing mentions, and the subject commenting on something; these do not establish notability per WP:GNG. There is also nothing in the draft that would suggest NACADEMIC notability.
Note, too, that articles on living people have particularly strict referencing requirements, whereas much of the information in this draft is unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Mahmoudali123

[edit]

More resources added Mahmoudali123 (talk) 08:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you review it again? Mahmoudali123 (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123: this draft has been rejected, which means it won't be reviewed again. If new sources have become available which clearly demonstrate notability, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but only do that if you have a reasonably strong case. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have added are clearly not reliable independent sources [1] , [2], [3] and [4] Theroadislong (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the required sources? I have added 12 sources. Mahmoudali123 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahmoudali123: But there are still no sources that show notability. 12 poor sources are no better than no source at all, and are in fact often worse than no sources. All decline notices on your user talk page have explained what kind of sources are required, in the grey boxes of text starting with "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". --bonadea contributions talk 13:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Henrilebec

[edit]

In the normal world, the publication of research papers (by professional and academic institutions) indicates a very high level of notability and respect by independent scientific boards. This is how notability was established in the scientific world in the 1940s. The discovery and proof of tantalum's suitability for orthopaedic and dental surgery was a phenomenal scientific achievement, widely verified and acknowledged by medical science over 80 years ago. The listed journals are evidence of the required notability. Henrilebec (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec: merely publishing papers etc. confers no automatic notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. You need to demonstrate, with evidence, that this person satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACADEMIC notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia writing is different than scholarly and academic publishing. You've mostly cited work that this man wrote- that does not establish notability. If that work makes him notable(see the notability guideline for academics) we need independent reliable sources that state that- like published papers by others that cite his work as an influence on them. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Henrilebec Please read WP:ACADEME which explains the difference between academe and Wikipedia, and a lot else besides. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to follow-up questions: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Reliable Sources?. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 16 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:AA11:327F:3180:A81C:B7D2:A724:FA84

[edit]

Why did you reject my article? It actually is a myth from my town, im from Chur a small city in Switzerland and im trying to make those myths more famous. I do not appreciate the rejection. 2A02:AA11:327F:3180:A81C:B7D2:A724:FA84 (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the myth is not notable already then we cannot have an article about it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm trying to make those myths more famous" is another way of saying "I'm trying to promote those myths". Promotion is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia.
Another way of looking at it is that a Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable published sources say about a subject. That's all. ColinFine (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Trex32

[edit]

Thanks for the editorial feedback. There are a number of new third party sources that mention the subject. When I compare to other wikipedia articles these are more robust third party sources. Please advise. This article has evolved a fair bit with all the editorial feedback. Would apppreciate more advice to get this approved. Trex32 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Trex32. Do they "mention" the subject, or do they have significant coverage of him? If they only mention him, they contribute nothing.
Don't compare with other Wikipedia articles, unless they are good articles or featured articles: we have tens of thousands of seriously substandard articles which, if they were submitted today, would certainly not be accepted (but we don't have tens of thousands of editors who are willing to spend much time going through these improving or deleting them). We evaluate each submitted article on its own merits. See other stuff exists.
I haven't looked at your sources, or really read your draft. But I notice that many statements have two or three citations. If I were a reviewer (I'm not) that would be a red flag. Unless a sentence has more than one claim, which happen to be verifiable from different sources, there is no point in attaching more than one citation to a sentence - and doing so suggests either that the writer does not understand the purpose of a citation (which is, telling the reader where they can find verification of information in the preceding text - nothing else), or that they realise that their sources are weak, and hope that by providing multiple weak sources, this somehow adds up to a satisfactory source (it doesn't). ColinFine (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fully half of these are things written by Reddi, so those are not independent. Most of the rest of the sources are simply quotes from Reddi. Only a handful of these sources have any information about Reddi and the ones that aren't passing mentions of Reddi's job title are either WP:PRIMARY or things connected to Reddi, such as bio listing on an advertised panel. Even if these were independent and reliable, the sourcing is a mess, with sources frequently not backing up the specific fact they're cited to and many not even mentioning Reddi.
If you're serious about making the best case for an article on this subject, start with only sources that are independent, reliable, and specifically about Reddi. Then write from those sources and only those sources. Three good sources are superior to 30 passing mentions. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice, very grateful@CoffeeCrumbs@ColinFine. Will start rewriting. Really appreciate the feedback Trex32 (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you good fortune! CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:47, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Artistguides

[edit]

The comment is that my article is non notable? However, there are many news articles about Hendog and their art and what they have done in their community. I cannot understand how this is non notable? Can anyone help out?? Artistguides (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Artistguides: it seems that the majority, if not all, of the sources are either about individual works, rather than about the artist, and/or they are the artist commenting on their work. Can you point out the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG standard, namely secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other), and have provided significant coverage of the subject? (I'm focusing on the GNG, because I don't see how this would meet the special WP:ARTIST guideline.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Theriazz123

[edit]

How can I improve this article? Theriazz123 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection means that no improvement is possible, at least not before the release of the film. See WP:NFF. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Beezy Gh

[edit]

I will need an assistance with the referencing for this article with detailed and simple explanation of what needs to be done. Beezy Gh (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beezy Gh You've created a promotional draft with the help of an AI chatbot. It's entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:19, 16 November 2024 review of submission by Hassan Sirhandi

[edit]

Ill donate 50 dollars if you guys allow to publish my page. Hassan Sirhandi (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassan Sirhandi Donations go to the Wikimedia Foundation who run the servers Wikipedia is hosted on. Volunteer editors do not see any of that money. The Foundation does not need your donations. Donations have no impact on if an article will get reviewed or accepted.
As you have offered money on this public forum, you will very likely be contacted by scammers who say they can publish/edit/accept an article in exchange for money. This is an ongoing scam. qcne (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

[edit]

00:22, 17 November 2024 review of submission by 2409:40D1:2010:B0C9:8000:0:0:0

[edit]

i don't know why my page rejected 2409:40D1:2010:B0C9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected because "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia".
Please read the definition of notability that we use. ColinFine (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Tumbleweed game

[edit]

Hi. My article on the abstract game Tumbleweed was rejected. I don't think it is a question of notability, as much lesser known abstract games have their own page. In terms of references, I linked the Abstract Games magazine, which is the most authoritative magazine on the topic, and an article on a Canadian newspaper. I can link to BGG and BGA if needed. 122.11.212.181 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be about Draft:Tumbleweed (game) although this IP address has not edited that draft. The SaskToday coverage is an opinion piece that relies overwhelmingly on direct quotations from Michal Zapala, the creator of the game. The AbstractGames.org piece was co-authored by Zapala. Neither of these references are independent of the game and its creator. What is required are multiple references to reliable sources that are entirely independent of the game and its creator, that also devote significant coverage to the game. You mention that much lesser known abstract games have their own page. Please list them here. Maybe some or all of those articles should be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks the reply.
The article is by me, but I'm not logged into the account from the phone.
Involving or interviewing the author of a work is standard journalistic practice in my view, but I'll try to find some more references where the author is not involved. 122.11.214.237 (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, think more along the lines of reviews of games - these are likely to be independent, and there are many reliable publications and websites that review games. If someone heavily involved with the game is being interviewed as part of the piece, it's much less likely there's going to be any meaningful criticism or pointing out flaws. This isn't to say we require criticism, only that we're trying to find the least biased reporting available to fit with our eternal quest for a neutral point of view. Have a look at WP:42 for more information on what you need in a source. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mandatory and not negotiable that an acceptable Wikipedia article about a new game summarizes reliable, independent sources that are entirely independent of the game and the person that created the game. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. That's why I linked WP:42, since I think it has possibly the clearest information available on suitable sources. (If you were responding to the IP editor and I misread, please ignore this with my apologies.) StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Involving or interviewing the author of works is standard journalistic practice, but just because something is a journalist practice doesn't mean it's encyclopedic for our purposes. We care about notability based on sources that are reliable, significant, and independent of the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Johncino

[edit]

Hi. So my last edit got rejected, but I would like to try again. I made a new edit on it, so can you check it again, thanks. Johncino (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that an article will not be considered further. Your draft is completely unsourced. Any article about this channel must summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it and what makes it notable web content as Wikipedia defines it. If you need help writing citations, see Referencing for Beginners.
If you are associated with this channel(some language is very promotional) that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:38, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

When creating a new entry, do you need to write the entry in a complete manner? Rosebabysu (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft does not need to be 100% complete to pass this process; the usual standard reviewers look for is that a draft would survive an Articles for deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:12, 17 November 2024 review of submission by 82.55.176.158

[edit]

buongiorno chiedo aiuto per la mia bozza Gaetano Minale che viene respinta perchè ritenuta più volte , non valida , nonostante aggiornamenti documentai. Possa avere per favore il vostro sostegno . Grazie Gaetano Minale 82.55.176.158 (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Automated translation of the above: "good morning I ask for help for my Gaetano Minale draft that is rejected because it was considered invalid several times, despite document updates. May I please have your support. Thank you") —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:07:05, 17 November 2024 for assistance on AfC submission by Kplsharmadhk

[edit]



Kplsharmadhk (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kplsharmadhk: you don't ask a question, but this draft was deleted c. 1.5 years ago, as it hadn't been edited for six months. You may request for it to be returned to you by clicking on the red link and following the instructions there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Anovi Ejtikar

[edit]

Hi,

Can you let me know what I need to change in this article to be published?

I saw that I wrongly used references, instead of citing news, I used cite web since all the sources are from news.

Thank you in advance for your help,

Best 

Anovi Ejtikar (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Anovi Ejtikar! Have you read through Your First Article, the Biographies of Living Persons policy, and our golden rule for selecting references? If not, start with those. I think your problem is likely to be the references you've used, rather than how you've cited them, so that third link will be especially important for you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, but those references are by publishers that has a reputation for fact checking and those texts are approved by an editor before it is printed. Maybe you see as it because the source are from Croatia, which is a small country, but references are valid. Anovi Ejtikar (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anovi Ejtikar, did you read through the third link, WP:42? I have had a look at some of your references to see if I can help - using Google Translate as I only speak English, so forgive any errors. Remember that your sources should meet the triple criteria of WP:42 to demonstrate notability, so any that don't are useless in terms of showing that someone is notable.
  • RockOff is a track list, so not significant coverage.
  • Feather is extremely short, so not significant coverage.
  • Sound Report is also very short, but it might be usable.
  • tportal is an interview, so not independent.
  • Muzika, unless I have completely missed something, is a single word, which is not significant coverage.
  • Ravno #1, '50 best albums', is a list, not significant coverage.
  • Ravno #2, about the release of Alright, is partly an interview or press release from Miriiam and the publishing studio, so not independent.
  • Ravno #3, about Call Me Up, is a good source.
  • Ravno 4, also about Call Me Up, is also a good source.
So in short, you need at least one or two more good sources to show she is notable. You also need to reread WP:BLP, because every single sentence in a biography of a living person must have a citation, and you are missing citations for things like her date of birth, birthplace, etc. Those will need to be either cited or removed before the draft is accepted. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your help Anovi Ejtikar (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Amar Karavdic

[edit]

Potrebna mi je pomoć da premjestim ovaj nacrt u Draft prostor imena kako bi bio u skladu sa smjernicama Wikipedije. Nemam potrebne dozvole da to učinim sam. Ovo će osigurati da nacrt bude pravilno pregledan i da zadrži svoju historiju uređivanja. Amar Karavdic (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Amar Karavdic

[edit]

Molim za savjet kako mogu poboljšati nacrt kako bi zadovoljio kriterije značajnosti. Dodao/la sam neke izvore, ali sam otvoren/a za sugestije. Amar Karavdic (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not notable for Wikipedia. qcne (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, please go to the Croatian Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Izackb11

[edit]

hello, I would like some advice in how to rewrite my wikipedia page, if possible to let me know also what's missing and what I could improve before resubmit again please, thanks. Izackb11 (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Izackb11 Ny best advice is not to do it. Also note that rejection means this this draft will not proceed further. You do not pass WP:NMUSICIAN. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Izackb11 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:28, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Anthon.shishkin

[edit]

The draft was marked as "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." I think the problem is not the subject of the article, but my skills (as a very fresh author - I promise to improve).

While I fully admit: I'm not a very good Wikipedia researcher, the person in question created one of the largest telecommunication companies. Another (Russian) co-founder of the same company, Dmitry Zimin has a page on Wikipedia. It does not seem fair that while one person meets notability criteria, the other person with a very similar profile but from the U.S. does not meet notability standards.

Besides, the name of the person is mentioned on the Wikipedia page about VEON, and I was thinking it's good to link this name to a proper article. Anthon.shishkin (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anthon.shishkin. I'd be happy to revert my rejection in good-faith. It would be worth reading the following:
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1 qcne (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:48, 17 November 2024 review of submission by Harryhealey

[edit]

I am trying to write an article on our local entrepreneur, Oliver Alcock. Please can you let me know what needs to be changed for this article to be approved? Harryhealey (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harryhealey Re-write it to comply with our strict policies regarding promotion. Then add in-line citations throughout. qcne (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


November 18

[edit]

01:49, 18 November 2024 review of submission by SleepyCat

[edit]

I've updated my references as instructed, why can't I pass? SleepyCat (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources just aren't by and large very useful. The first three aren't about Gong Rujing, but simply expressing Gong's opinion about a subject related to her company. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that being named a Young Global Leader by the non-profit is a good source, that's still an incredibly thin article. Not much else has been presented for Gong's notability. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SleepyCat, your goal is to demonstrate that your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards. Since Gong is a person, you can use either WP:NPERSON, for people (there are subcategories you may also want to look into), or WP:GNG, for general notability. Decide on what criteria you're using, and tailor your sources to that. Make sure all your sources fit the triple criteria in WP:42, and read through WP:BLP for the policy on articles about living people. I know this is a lot; unfortunately, as you're discovering, writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing about a living person is the hardest kind of article. Luckily all the policies and guidelines are clearly laid out, so you can see what you're trying to do and decide whether it's possible to write an article now or whether to wait a bit until there's more suitable sources out there. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:46, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

Is there a reference template for creating new entries? I don't know whether the entry I submitted meets the typesetting requirements. Rosebabysu (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosebabysu: sorry, I don't follow; can you clarify what you mean? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rosebabysu. A "template" such as you are suggesting would only help with the appearance of the draft, and that is a superficial matter (it is important, but it can easily be fixed if it is not right).
The far more important - and more challenging - part of creating an article is getting the sources right.
Think of it like building a house. The appearance of the house is important - but if you haven't surveyed the site and found that it is suitable for building on, and built the foundations, then it is probably a waste of time trying to build the house.
The equivalent of surveying the site is to find the sources that will establish that Dai Ying is notable in Wikipedia's sense: you need to find at least three sources which
  • are reliably published - not social media, blogs, forums, or "news" sites which publish press releases with no editorial control.
  • are wholly independent of the subject - not written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates, and not based on an interview or press release.
  • contain significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions of them.
If you cannot find at least three sources that meet these criteria, then give up and choose a different subject. If you can, the next step is to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say.
I haven't attempted to get translations of your Chinese language sources, but the two in English only mention Dai Ying in order to quote him. These are useless for establishing notability.
More generally: 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 am aware that you created your account more than a year ago, but you have made only27 edits, and most of them are to this draft, so you are still a new editor. ColinFine (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Moepilled

[edit]

I don't understand what I am doing wrong and why my submission is getting declined, the page includes most publicly available information about Nagomu with sources included. In the notes people said Niconico and Twitter, etc are not reliable sources, but I don't understand what they mean by that, and they removed the external links even though I thought that was for Social Media's and stuff (I based it off of Kikuo (musician)'s page). I am also neurodivergent and struggle to understand a lot of stuff on Wikipedia and what people mean, so please explain simply. Thank you in advance Moepilled (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moepilled: the sources cited in this draft are of very poor quality. Take Twitter as an example: I can send out a tweet right now saying that the Moon is made of cheese (and that wouldn't be anywhere near the craziest tweets sent out today!). That doesn't make it so, and you shouldn't use my tweet as evidence that it is. We only accept sources that can actually be trusted to be correct in what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is, it's Tweeted by the person who the page is about Moepilled (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moepilled: okay, but that doesn't make it any more reliable. Forget my earlier Moon example. I can instead tweet to say that I'm the king of Atlantis. Would you trust that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people exaggerate or lie about themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moepilled, perhaps you would find WP:42 helpful - this is our 'golden rule' for sources and goes into some detail (with links) about what you're looking for. In short, you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. This means:
  • the source must be mostly or entirely about your subject;
  • the source must be from a place that is known to report factually and truthfully, that has an editor and fact-checkers, and that doesn't take payment in exchange for reporting (there's a list of sources at WP:RSPSS to look over, with information about whether we think they are reliable);
  • the source must not be connected to your subject (themself, their friends or family, their employer or employee, and so on are all connected).
All of those things must be true if you want to use something as a source. The musician's Twitter would fail 'reliable' (people can tell lies on Twitter) and 'independent' (the person tweeting is the subject).
If you want to look at good articles for musicians, try this list of Featured Articles - they are the best of the best and you can safely base a draft on them. The article you used as your example may not be a good article, but these will definitely all be good. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 18 November 2024 review of submission by 128.40.53.141

[edit]

I need help on how to correct the citations on the draft page for Bart please. Can you show me what I need to do to fix the citations, thanks. 128.40.53.141 (talk) 09:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, I think your citations look okay - I think the reviewer means that you need evidence to show that Vanhaesebroeck is notable as a professor/academic. The criteria you need to meet will be laid out at WP:NPROF (click that for a link), so see if you can find sources that match the information there. Does that help? StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I understand that the person has to be notable. I will try again to add further references. 99.224.174.192 (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 18 November 2024 review of submission by 99.224.174.192

[edit]

I am not understanding which ones of the references are not properly mentioned. Thanks for help in advance. 99.224.174.192 (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, not one of your sources is relevant to establishing that Hopkins meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Most of them do not even mention Hopkins, and the two that do are written by him, and so not independent.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject, and been published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking - and almost nothing else.
It seems to me that you have not cited a single source of that nature. Please see WP:42 for more information.
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) 13:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Itsmeblondie90

[edit]

Hi, curious as to why this submission was rejected. Could you clarify and maybe make a recommendation as to what could improve the article? Thanks. Itsmeblondie90 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.
You have collated a list of events(some very minor) related to Ferris Wheels, but offered no reliable sources to indicate this is a distinct topic. 331dot (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Arched763

[edit]

Why does it keep getting deleted Arched763 (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because you keep spamming it, @Arched763. Further spam drafts will lead to your account being blocked. qcne (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:57, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Jessica3801

[edit]

I was curious about the reason Draft:LegitTayUpdates was turned down? It says to check What wikipedia is not, which the page does not appear to violate. The comment about it being an unidentified individual isn't clear to me either, I didn't see anything anywhere about a lack of pseudonym being a requirement for pages. The incident that made her famous has enough coverage in my opinion to fulfill GNG as she is consistently still referred to and was discussed in scholarly articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and she did a lot of activism after the event that also received significant coverage. She seems to pretty clearly pass GNG, albeit pseudonymously. Are there edits that can be made that would lead to it getting approved? Jessica3801 (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page, as you are editing about the Israeli-Arab conflict, a topic area with its own special rules. Those rules mean that, if your draft was accepted, you could not edit it until your account is extended-confirmed(30 days old with 500 edits). 331dot (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessica3801: To expand on what 331dot says above, I generally recommend new users stay away from any topic area listed at WP:General sanctions#Active sanctions, as the situation in them is so bad that it both ill-represents Wikipedia and is likely to draw unwanted (negative) attention towards yourself from more established partisans in them. (The Arab-Israeli conflict is so unbelievably toxic to work in that there's been four separate tries to break the back of the disputes over it, with a fifth being drafted up as we speak.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what others said above, but still this individual appears to meet WP:GNG. I suggest resubmitting, making sure to edit with extra care. Perhaps @Tesleemah can explain better. Ca talk to me! 02:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Ca for the ping, the individual does not appear to meet GNG with Indepth Research. Most websites are interview granted by the subject such as this and this and this And to buttress the point made by @331dot and @Jéské Couriano, There should be clarity when writing about contentious topic and especially for a new editor, this is why I declined the draft. The topic is also ambiguous and requires caution, I feel @Jessica3801 is too new and not ready to bear the weight yet. I'm open to more discussion and opinion about the decline going forward. Tesleemah (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the rules regarding contentious topics, thank you all for the heads up. In terms of GNG however, I do believe that she fits. While it is true that "most websites" are interviews, that's only 7 out of the 12 sources. The remaining 5 are completely independent of Na'ama and focus on her notability and the impact she had in her refusal. I'm willing to work on this article is still allowable because I do believe she meets notability guidelines and should have a page covering her in an encyclopedic fashion, how can I go about making it more clear and sensitive to the contentiousness of the subject? Is there a better place to talk about it like the draft's talk page? I can also work to be eligible to edit such pages if that is necessary for the draft to get published. EDIT: It's actually 6 sources that are interviews, 5 that are independent, and one that's not an interview but is the website of the person who helped design her book. -Jessica3801 (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to talk about it here. The draft talk page is not likely to be seen by many other than yourself and reviewers.
I'm not clear on what her impact was. $2000 in fundraising was attributed to her, not a huge sum of money. Some sources briefly mention her as having some sort of impact on a subset of internet culture, I'm not sure what that is. It doesn't seem like others refused to join the IDF in solidarity with her, or that her refusal has impacted the war in some way. (one source noted that 1% of people refuse to join so it's not unheard of). If you do want to resubmit this I would suggest removing everything cited to an interview, then maybe the other stuff will be clearer. I sort of agree with the others here in that I would personally set this aside until you are extended-confirmed. Nothing will happen to the draft for six months(and even if deleted due to inactivity, it can be restored). 331dot (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, that like the others, I'm also unconvinced of the notability. The sources that are all not interviews are basically just covering the same thing in slightly different matter from a few days in April 2019. This article just feels extremely WP:1E and I don't think it would survive a trip to AFD. This is another reason to hold off on this article; if it ended up in AFD, you wouldn't be able to participate in the discussion while a non-ECP editor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 18 November 2024 review of submission by ZAKKALLU

[edit]

this is my biography ZAKKALLU (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 18 November 2024 review of submission by X4VIER.OneTap

[edit]

to make it better pls X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 18 November 2024 review of submission by Simojibourex

[edit]

Iedit Simojibou is artists and developer Simojibourex (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Simojibourex, you are not Wikipedia:NOTABLE. qcne (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 18 November 2024 review of submission by WilNik

[edit]

Can you please specify what sources are missing in the article?

Thanks a lot, WilNik WilNik (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell how useful your sources are, because you give only a URL, and in most cases it points to the top level. Please see WP:REFB.
The purpose of a citation is for a reader to be able to say "Oh that's an interesting piece of information. I wonder if it's correct?" and be able to locate the cited source and see "Oh yes, this author, published by this reputable publisher, says that, so I can probably trust it". ("Oh, that was said by some random person on Twitter: I probably can't trust it"). Most of your citations don't help a reader do that - and much of the information in your draft is not cited to a source at all.
Please see WP:42 for information about what most of your cited sources should be.
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) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

[edit]

02:34, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

[edit]

The draft character I submitted is a relatively popular figure, and there are many reports on her deeds, but I have been revising the draft and it has not been passed yet. I don’t know if the current data can be passed. In addition, I would like to ask about other things besides the reported data that can prove the popularity. In addition, are there any other methods that are more suitable for checking the popularity of a person or thing? Rosebabysu (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find sources that are reliable, that are independent of the subject, and that are providing significant coverage about the subject. I'd have to agree with the drafter feedback; this article is a very long way from passing Articles for Deletion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Rosebabysu. Please note that the "popularity" of a person or thing has no direct connection with whether or not they are notable in Wikipedia's sense. There are many YouTubers (to take one example) who are popular, but because nobody has written about them in a reliable source, they do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Conversely, there are many notable writers, politicians, engineers, etc who have never been "popular".
Notability is mostly about the answer to the question "Is there enough reliably published material available about this subject?", 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. ColinFine (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:52, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Sethaw k.

[edit]

I would like to ask you about declined article that how will be able to resolve it Sethaw k. (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To resolve the issues, you'd have to write the article based on sources that are reliable and independent and actually about the subject. Five of the eight sources aren't about the subject at all and he's only mentioned in passing in the form of being quoted about another subject. Of the other three, you have something written by the subject, not about the subject, his LinkedinPage, and a list of him as a speaker at an event. There's not a single usable source here. And even with sources, the tone of the article is blatantly promotional, to the extent that I'm wondering if there's an undisclosed WP:COI here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the promotional tone, and the fact that a photograph that you uploaded and called your "own work" also appears on the web page for the event hosting Naripthaphan as a speaker, you need to clarify any undisclosed conflict of interest you have with the subject. And if you didn't create the photograph, you either need to get the proper licensing for it or remove it as a violation of our fairly strict rules about copyright. This last part is something you need to take care of immediately. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:19, 19 November 2024 review of submission by AjinkyaKinetic

[edit]

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing with the recent speedy deletion nomination placed on the Wikipedia draft page titled Draft: Ajinkya_Firodia. The page was tagged under section G11, with the reasoning that it is promotional.

I understand the concern regarding promotional content and I fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring that all Wikipedia entries adhere to the platform's guidelines and policies. We are committed to revising the page to align with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality and encyclopedic tone.

To address the issues raised, we will be undertaking the following changes:

Rewriting the content to remove any promotional language or biased claims. Adding verifiable, reliable sources to support the information, ensuring it meets Wikipedia’s notability and citation requirements. Reframing the article to focus on the subject’s factual contributions, achievements, and relevant information, in line with Wikipedia’s biographical guidelines. We kindly request that you consider reviewing the draft after these revisions are made, and we would appreciate the opportunity to revise the content in a manner that complies with Wikipedia’s editorial standards. If the draft is deleted, we would happily provide further information and request restoration if necessary. AjinkyaKinetic (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AjinkyaKinetic you can recreate the draft at any time, but if it is still promotional, it will be deleted again. Also, who's 'we'? Accounts should not be shared. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AjinkyaKinetic: I have little faith in your ability to re-write the draft when you're using a chatbot to post this thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Interscope Web

[edit]

how to improve our draft Interscope Web (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Interscope Web: you have to demonstrate that the subject is notable; you need to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner; and you must cite your sources inline (see WP:ILC). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help us edit the draft to make it acceptable by wikipedia Interscope Web (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are here to advice, not co-write. The onus is on you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Interscope Web. You probably won't want to hear this, but: 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) 10:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 19 November 2024 review of submission by CSK1987

[edit]

Dear Team,

I have revised and enhanced the content in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Updates have been made to the Introduction, Early Life, Professional Journey, Establishment & Vision, Philanthropy & Social Contributions, and Awards & Recognition sections. Additionally, references have been corrected and added to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Please share your suggestions on which sections may need further rewriting or improvements.

Best regards, CSK CSK1987 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSK1987: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 19 November 2024 review of submission by MrAwesome1234

[edit]

Why did you remove it MrAwesome1234 (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is located at User:MrAwesome1234/sandbox, but has been declined. qcne (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:40, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Kevsand04

[edit]

Hey! I saw that my English translation of the japanese article XYZ-1 was rejected. I am just wondering how I can get my translation accepted, when the original article doesn`t have any sources. This is my first time translating an article, so I really appreciate any help I get. Considering the lack of sources in the original, is there anything I can do to for my translation to be accepted? All the information I included came from the original japanese article. Thanks in advance for helping! Kevsand04 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kevsand04. Each Wikipedia language project is entirely separate and unaffiliated, with different policies and guidelines. What may be acceptable on one may not be acceptable on this one. The English language Wikipedia project generally has the strictest notability, referencing, and content requirements of any of them.
Your draft has no sources and therefore wouldn't be accepted on the English Wikipedia. Please have a read of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. qcne (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fandom page you cited says "This information could be from an unnamed book, but the most plausible explanation is that someone created the Wikipedia article as a prank". Wikipedia doesn't host hoaxes. qcne (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiepdia has several articles about cryptids. Many of these can not be proven to actually exist. The article I translated is just like those; a cryptid that has reportedly been seen, but that can`t be confirmed. Kevsand04 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None the less, @Kevsand04, without sources an article cannot be accepted onto the English Wikipedia and your two sources (jp.wiki and fandom) are invalid. qcne (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Kevsand04. Existence is not a requirement for notability: We have articles on unicorns and on the Loch Ness Monster because they have been written about in reliable sources.
If several independent reliable sources have written about your cryptid, then it may meet English Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and an article is possible. If they haven't, then it isn't. ColinFine (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 19 November 2024 review of submission by 87.198.214.242

[edit]

I submitted the page and read the additional comments left by the reviewer. I edited the submission to address all issues raised and resubmitted it; after 5 months, I have yet to receive any comment, and the page still needs to be public. It requires more edits, or if not, why is it yet to be online? Thanks 87.198.214.242 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, you only submitted it for review today? qcne (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP user, I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No article "needs" to be here. What is the source of your need? 331dot (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:09, 19 November 2024 review of submission by ZAKKALLU

[edit]

i am zakariya k abdulla . i create my biography . please accept that ZAKKALLU (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, @ZAKKALLU, you are not notable enough to merit an article. qcne (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZAKKALLU: please follow this link and read the information there: Wikipedia is not a platform where people can post their biography. Biographical articles in Wikipedia are summaries of information published by independent, reliable sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 19 November 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Community/Help Desk,

I am writing to seek assistance with creating a Wikipedia page for Reena Gupta. While I understand the stringent notability guidelines, I believe that Reena Gupta's significant contributions in politics, academia, business and environment to warrant a Wikipedia page.

I've noticed that individuals like Fahad Ahmed, a politician and student activist, have Wikipedia pages. While Reena Gupta

I have gathered reliable sources such as news articles, academic papers. I am unsure about the specific steps to proceed and would appreciate any guidance.

Thank you Jeswanth2 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have many sources, @Jeswanth2. Choose three, and only three, which all meet this criteria, and paste them here. qcne (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note, @Jeswanth2, you have already posted this question three other times and been given answers each time.
- October
- September
- July
Was there something you did not understand about the other times you were answered? qcne (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am sorry for asking repeatedly.
I see two sections here. Which sources are you referring to Reliable Sources or Independent Sources? So that I'll do more research and get back.
Thank you once again. Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for clarification, are you seeking to strengthen the reliable sources sesion or ensure the sources qualify as independent? I would appreciate if can help me understand this. Jeswanth2 (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this person or the apparatus of their political party? 331dot (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do have an association with this person and their party's apparatus. Jeswanth2 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources must always be reliable, otherwise they can't be used at all. Independent and secondary sources are required to show notability. In addition, there must be significant coverage of the person in the source. You are asked to point out three sources that meet all these criteria. Please look at the decline notice from 11 July on your user talk page, where this is explained. --bonadea contributions talk 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:20, 19 November 2024 review of submission by 2607:F010:2E9:15:892F:3C4B:372C:C629

[edit]

Hi, thank you so much for reviewing! It would be great if I could get some detailed and structured advice on how to make the article less essay style and more like an encyclopedia. As currently, I'm citing all the credible published journal articles and am confused about what it means to take a neutral tone. Could you share some examples, like maybe one sentence from the article and one exemplar of how to make the adjustment? Thank you so much! 2607:F010:2E9:15:892F:3C4B:372C:C629 (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any discussion would be largely academic, as the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article would need a fundamental rewrite to be accepted. The draft in its current form states opinion as fact, contains unsourced statements, and original analysis. Please review WP:No original research and try taking a look at other philosophy articles. Ca talk to me! 00:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

[edit]

00:59, 20 November 2024 review of submission by NateGlass23

[edit]

Hi, I'm told that my article submission was blank. But I did include the following text, can anyone help me figure out the issue?

Extended content

{{AFC submission|d|blank|u=NateGlass23|ns=118|decliner=Shadow311|declinets=20241120005548|ts=20241120005157}} <!-- Do not remove this line! --> {{Short description|Financial technology company}} {{Draft topics|business-and-economics}} {{AfC topic|org}} <!-- Important, do not remove this line before article has been created. -- Mission Lane is an American financial technology company located in Richmond, VA. The company was founded in 2018<ref>https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/146594-89#overview</ref> and has raised significant capital from a variety of investors including Invus, QED Ventures, Goldman Sachs, Oaktree Capital Management and many others.<ref>https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211026005137/en/Mission-Lane-Completes-Inaugural-320-Million-ABS-Transaction-and-Raises-150M-in-Redeemable-Preferred-Equity</ref> The company has over three million customers and has a portfolio of $2billion.<ref>https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2024/02/221618-mission-lane-appoints-brandon-black-as-ceo-acquires-additional-funding-from-qed-investors-others/</ref> The CEO of Mission Lane is Brandon Black, who previously served as the COO and CEO of Encore Capital Group.<ref>https://www.fintechfutures.com/2024/02/mission-lane-appoints-former-board-member-brandon-black-as-new-ceo/#:~:text=Credit%20finance%20tech%20vendor%2C%20Mission,replacing%20previous%20boss%20Shane%20Holdaway.&text=Black%2C%20who%20has%20been%20on,collections%2C%20credit%20and%20fraud%20units.</ref> == References == <!-- Inline citations added to your article will automatically display here. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REFB for instructions on how to add citations. --> {{reflist}}

NateGlass23 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NateGlass23 the text was commented out. I've fixed it for you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NateGlass23 (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NateGlass23, your draft lacks references to reliable sources that are independent of Mission Lane that devote significant coverage to Mission Lane. Your references are mostly based on company press releases. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:37, 20 November 2024 review of submission by 41.210.146.83

[edit]

Article Submission 41.210.146.83 (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? The draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected already, do not resubmit. And once your account is blocked, do not edit logged-out, either; the block is to you as a person, not just to your account(s). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Omar Azami

[edit]

Hi, How can I delete my current sandbox and start a new one please? Thank you Omar Azami (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Omar Azami, just edit it and replace all the content. qcne (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 20 November 2024 review of submission by ASAJU12

[edit]

i need someone that who can help me to edit my article ASAJU12 (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ASAJU12 For some reason you placed the url of the Wikipedia home page where the title of your draft should be....I fixed this. Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This isn't the place to request co-editors. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 20 November 2024 review of submission by FFFzzz

[edit]

please approve it Azuki is more bigger than you think. you will regret and why BAYC is passed but you decline Azuki. It is unfair. FFFzzz (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FFFzzz do not threaten volunteer editors. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WTF it is very unfair and it is bias and racisms. Why BAYC pass but Azuki not consider further. FFFzzz (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove the decline notices from the draft. You have not shown that Azuki meets our Wikipedia:Notability criteria. If you feel at some point in the future that there are more sources that have come to light that do make it seem like the project meets the notability criteria, please message the rejecting review @CNMall41 and ask them to take another look.
On absolutely no account should you call volunteer editors racist. Further disruptive comments may lead to your account being blocked. qcne (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay then you tell me why BAYC meet the Wikipedia:Notability criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bored_Ape just tell what difference between these two and i don't think they meet the criteria so i can report? Centralize authority really need to be banned. hilarious FFFzzz (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists; each draft or article is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. If you feel that a particular article does not meet notability guidelines, feel free to take action to address that. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bored Ape yes this one thank you FFFzzz (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the whole url when you link to another Wikipedia article. As I said, if you feel it does not meet guidelines, you are free to take action; edit it, propose its deletion, what have you. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the BAYC article has 76 sources and the Azuki draft has 8. More sources doesn't necessarily mean better, we would prefer quality over quantity, but looking at your draft I only see one source of any use (theblock.co). Whereas the BAYC article has several strong sources from reliable mainstream news websites. qcne (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FFFzzz: For the record, Web3 is a community-designated contentious topic in part due to behaviour like yours. Tamp down the adversarial stance, it doesn't help you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what sourcing has to do with race and bias. Wikipedia is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. I looked at the additions you have made since the numerous declines and the changes you made came no where near showing notability so there was no sense in even looking at specifics of the content. Now that we are here, given that you are the second account and bludgeoning the process, there are clear signs that you may have a WP:COI regarding this topic. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. As far as the racist and bias comment, please address those concerns at WP:ANI if you feel strongly that is the case in this matter. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 20 November 2024 review of submission by 188.85.205.222

[edit]

Tio espabila macho entiendo que te guste los hombres pero ese hombre es mucho mas que tu novio 188.85.205.222 (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be vaguely homophobic. qcne (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Damilare Okunola

[edit]

My article has been nominated for deletion and it saddens Me. I've seen the reasons for this nomination, however, I believe that the sources of the citations shared, all independent, are quite credible. Also, can I ask if the sources can be social media accounts? Will that suffice as well? Damilare Okunola (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Damilare Okunola, I nominated the sandbox for deletion as it was unambiguously an advertising and promotional in content. Wikipedia prohibits promotion, and you must write in a factually neutral way by summarising what reliable sources state about a topic. Sorry it has saddened you: writing a Wikipedia article as a new editor is very difficult and frustrating if you are not familiar with our policies and guidelines.
Social media very rarely suffices as a source: they are either primary or not reliable.
What we're looking for is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss the person and provide commentary, analysis, debate, etc.
Let me know if you have any questions. qcne (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind and honest response. I'll keep working on the points you raised. I read also that I cannot use an article from Nigeria Tennis Live's website - what if I have a genuine article from where which was from a honest feedback about the organization? I can share examples for your perusal. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any intel about Nigeria Tennis Live's status as a source: I can't find a discussion on our Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources guide or at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. So it would depend on the context of the source and what you are trying to reference with it. Where did you read they cannot be used? qcne (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot remember, but if it can be used, then there are quite a number of sources from Nigeria Tennis Live that are credible and independent that can be added. I'll edit the article appropriately and share, but please, I'm still learning the ropes, kindly help Me with possible corrections after the editing, until I finally get it. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to make a new draft in your sandbox, but don't submit it for review (that way it won't be deleted if inappropriate) and then let me know when you're done by leaving a message on my User Talk page (feel free to take days or weeks) and I will have another look. qcne (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very encouraging, thank you so much. I'll rework it and let you know. I appreciate your kind help. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Qcneso, I've just seen that my initial update was deleted, I didn't know it would come that quickly, but it's fine. I've rewritten the article but I'm yet to submit for review. Could you kindly take a quick look so that I can know what else to work on? Thank you. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any updates in your contribution history, make sure you have pressed Publish changes to "save" the text. That doesn't publish it for review. qcne (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done that now. Hopefully, I am not tagged for deletion before you get to see it. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I see it.
So, it is still written like an advert. Phrases like "a hub for tennis enthusiasts", "prominent voice", "founded with the aim", "The mission of" etc etc.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: content should factually report on topics based off reliable sources. Whereas the content on the sandbox you've written might be appropriate as the About Us page on the Nigeria Tennis Live website, or an advert in a magazine.
You should find reliable independent sources (at least three) first that provide significant independent coverage; going beyond simply reporting routine business dealing or public relations statements. Analyses, commentary, debate, comparison by independent reliable journalists is the sort of thing we're looking for.
Once you've found those sources, paraphrase and summarise them in a neutral and encyclopaedic way. qcne (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you. I'll go again and share the update with you. I appreciate your time and help so far. Have a good one. Damilare Okunola (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Qcnecould you kindly take a quick look? Am I getting closer to the format? Just asking so that I can know if there's anything I'm doing better... Damilare Okunola (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets go through your four sources on your sandbox.
  1. Is a primary source, so not independent, so doesn't contribute to notability.
  2. As above.
  3. This is an okay source. It is based mostly on an interview with employees of Tennis Live but has just about enough independent analysis that it nudges it over into acceptable.
  4. This links to the homepage of a website, do you have a link to a specific page?
The content is written better, but still promotional in tone. Wikipedia doesn't really care what Nigeria Tennis Live does, but how independent secondary sources have covered it. qcne (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Joer.Priority.Sports

[edit]

How can i improve my article to get it published? Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Joer.Priority.Sports. I left you a message on your User Talk page yesterday. Please read and digest that, then reply there if you had further questions. qcne (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qcne
I am an intern with no editing experience and I was told to post a biography about Ryan Richman, I read and digested the message of yours and ultimately I am still confused. Is there any way you would be able to help with the citations as I would like to fulfill my responsibilities to my boss. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, @Joer.Priority.Sports.
Firstly, have a read of Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. And perhaps show your boss that page too. You'll need to make a paid editing disclosure (this is mandatory), follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Biographies require in-line citations. The tutorial I linked on your talk page, Help:Introduction to referencing with VisualEditor/1, is going to be the easiest and most user-friendly way to cite properly.
However, writing for Wikipedia is hard and not a very fair job to put on an intern. We always recommend new editors spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles before diving into the difficult task of creating a new article. It's like being asked to perform in a concert when you've never played a flute before.
My best advice is to read those links, practice editing on your sandbox, and come back if you had more specific questions. qcne (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an intern I am not payed so the paid editing disclosure does not apply to me. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joer.Priority.Sports, please read WP:PAID, which states "Interns are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose." As an intern your "payment" is the work experience you are obtaining. Compensation doesn't have to be money or anything tangible. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I request an editor to create an article on Ryan Richman ? Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can request it but that area is backlogged to the point of uselessness. (and you will still need to make the paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement) My advice is that, as already suggested to you, you read WP:BOSS and have your boss read it too. I'm sorry you've been put in a difficult position by your boss, but our only interest is in working according to our policies. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown my boss the article you sent me and I truly appreciate your help and expertise. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After speaking with my boss I am wondering what the steps are for getting this article posted. We are a client services agency and boss is wondering how other G league coaches articles get posted and he also is wondering why it would be a conflict of interest.
Lets just say I make a paid editing disclosure and work the referencing kinks out of the equation. will my article still be posted ? Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a conflict of interest for you to edit about your company's clients. You have interests in your clients beyond merely contributing to this encyclopedia of human knowledge. To be frank, Wikipedia is unconcerned with your interests in your clients, our only interest is in writing an encyclopedia. Please read the conflict of interest policy for more information(it mentions a COI disclosure, the paid editing disclosure covers that in your case). Wikipedia articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic, who take note of coverage of a topic in independent reliable sources and choose on their own to write about it.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, and it's even harder with a conflict of interest. We usually recommend that new editors first gain experience and knowledge by editing existing articles in areas that interest them, to get a feel for how things work here and what is expected of article content. There is also a new user tutorial that is helpful.
The paid editing disclosure is mandatory for you, so you need to do that irrespective of the status of the draft. You need to remove anything sourced to YouTube(unless the videos are from reputable news outlets on their verified channel) as YouTube is not a reliable source. Your draft claims Mr. Richman has an "innovative" coaching style but has no source for that claim. The "personal life" section is similar, no sources for the claims made(like "commitment to family, community, and basketball"). 331dot (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting, @Joer.Priority.Sports, that Wikipedia has many millions of articles and tens of thousands of them are poor quality and should be deleted. As we're a volunteer project, bad articles slip through the net. So don't compare new drafts to existing articles (unless rated WP:GOOD). qcne (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne and @331dot Thank you both for the feedback and all of your assistance. Joer.Priority.Sports (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 20 November 2024 review of submission by Writer Johnc

[edit]

Hello! I just create a article and also reference with some news that is a secondary source and neutral , so i don't know what i need to do in this case, can you pls tell me more about my mistakes , thanks thanks! Writer Johnc (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writer Johnc If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see paid editing as well as conflict of interest. Your draft does little more than tell of the existence of the company; Wikipedia articles about companies must summarize what independent reliable sources with sigificant 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) 16:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 20 November 2024 review of submission by DonnaJRick

[edit]

Could you please review an article (Draft:Richard T. Brady) I tried publishing through AFC? I found very strong, reliable, third party sources supporting this profile but this article got rejected. Please help and guide me further. DonnaJRick (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @DonnaJRick. You have resubmitted the draft (which was declined, not rejected: rejected here means it's the end of the road), and a reviewer will get to it at some time: please be patient.
In the meantime, it is worth examining each of your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42: only sources that meet all three parts are capable of contributing to establishin that Brady meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Several of your sources are published by the military, and so are not independent. That doesn't mean you can't use them in limited ways (see WP:PRIMARY) but it means that they do not contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:37, 20 November 2024 review of submission by DtheH01

[edit]

The reviewer on this page said I didn't have an documented sources which is untrue. I've since added even more sources. The reviewer also can't spell even spell the word "referenced". Can another reviewer please review this page? Bill Myles is very deserving of a Wikipedia page. DtheH01 (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DtheH01: You're completely mischaracterising what Safari Scribe said - which is you have unreferenced claims in the article. EVERYTHING that a reasonable person could possibly challenge MUST be sourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Couriano: Can you please take a minute to look at the submission and tell me what is not referenced? I don't believe either of you have actually read the submission. DtheH01 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DtheH01: Looking at the revision that SafariScribe reviewed, I think it's clear that at the time your draft was mostly unreferenced. Good job improving it since then! jlwoodwa (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 21

[edit]

00:53, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Yourculturalscholar

[edit]

Hello,

My submission for Nick Barili was declined with the reason: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article."

I have since updated the draft to include references to significant and independent coverage from notable publications such as the LA Times, Deadline, The Oscars, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Princeton, CBS News, ABC News, Popsugar, HOLA Mag, Complex, Vibe, and Hip Hop DX.

Could you please advise if there are additional areas I should improve to demonstrate notability or address any other concerns? I want to ensure that the article aligns with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability.

Thank you for your time and guidance! Yourculturalscholar (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yourculturalscholar: you have resubmitted Draft:Nick Barili, so you will receive feedback when a reviewer comes across it and assesses it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 21 November 2024 review of submission by জামাল রেজা

[edit]

I am unable to hyperlink the page and my profile can you please suggest that and also tell me some of them for that. জামাল রেজা (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, it needs to be exactly as the title is- Draft:Jamal Reza. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@জামাল রেজা: I'm not sure what, if anything, you're asking, but as your draft is in a language other than English, it couldn't be accepted no matter what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you make it as soon as possible please...? is it possible within half an hour? জামাল রেজা (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
জামাল রেজা we have no deadlines here. Why are you on a deadline? And, as noted, the draft is not in English, you need to go to the Wikipedia of that language to post it. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:42, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Tomdee UG

[edit]

I need someone who can help me because, i try my best Tomdee UG (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomdee UG: your draft, such as it is, has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Mhamdym

[edit]

Why was my manuscript rejected? Mhamdym (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhamdym: your draft presents no evidence whatsoever that you are notable enough to be included, not to mention that it's basically just pure self-promotion. Please read WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why we very strongly discourage autobiographies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhamdym You have confused Wikipedia with a website that is interested in your life and achievements. Please use a resume site like LinkedIn. This draft has been sent for deletion as a blatant avert. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 21 November 2024 review of submission by Mydaemonthirst

[edit]

I need to understand what sources I am allowed to use. I created a further draft 'Swindon Health Hydro, Formerly Known as Milton Road Baths' because I wanted to change the title and I wanted to be more thorough with the details of the building's history, backed up with more references. If I know what I can and can't cite then I will find other references, however long that takes. The 'Swindon Victorian Baths' article is about just one element of the building and is part of the story of the Victorian Turkish baths movement - it deserves to be kept separate as part of that story, with a cross-reference from an article about the Health Hydro. Mydaemonthirst (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1258737148"