Help desk
< October 22	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 24 >

Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 23

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

173.222.1.164 (talk · contribs)
- Awnser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why did my article get declined

173.222.1.164 (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sassysusie13 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Yale Graduate and Professional Student Senate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Draft is not rejected, it is declined. Rejected drafts are unable to be resubmitted, while declined articles can be resubmitted after improvements. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the comments left below the templates. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gus0824 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:G-5 partners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. 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) 16:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ceri Aber (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Skin the Peeler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

@Ceri Aber: as many (most?) of your sources are offline, I can't easily check what they actually say, but just to make the general point that it's not enough for a source to be reliable and independent, it must also provide significant coverage directly of the subject.

The V&A is a primary source, and in any case doesn't seem to provide any actual coverage of this band, merely cataloguing their Glasto appearances.

All this matters if you're trying to demonstrate notability via the general WP:GNG route, which relies entirely on sources.

The other option would be to consider whether this band might be notable per WP:BAND. I suggest you study that guideline, and see if you can provide evidence that at least one of the 12 criteria is met, clearly and objectively.

Remember also that we need to know where the information in this draft is coming from, so that it can be verified. As a bare minimum, each paragraph should have at least one citation supporting it, and any potentially contentious statements need their own citations. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.I appreciate you taking the time to review the draft. I thought that the newspaper / Journal sources were enough in themselves, I have all the origin quotes, but I haven't got online verification for them all. Does that mean they can't be used ? I will edit the draft and I will try the WP.Band route as you suggested. Thanks again for your help. Ceri Aber (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceri Aber: RE "I haven't got online verification for them all. Does that mean they can't be used ?" – no, offline sources are perfectly acceptable, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. requirements. When citing offline sources, you need to include full bibliographical information to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification. It would also be great if you could provide a short quotation which supports the statement being made. See WP:OFFLINE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceri Aber: To help clarify what DoubleGrazing says, offline cites require a minimum amount of bibliographical information for a cite. For magazines, we need: publication name, edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and page(s) the article is on. For books, we need: Title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I am going to rewrite the article with the emphasis on getting the citations correct. I see what you mean about the information regarding off line cites.

Thanks again Ceri Aber (talk) 08:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Ceri Aber. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what indepedent reliable sources say about a subject.

Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. If your "origin quotes" are all from the band themselves, then they don't help. ColinFine (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am beginning to understand what you mean by reliable sources. I will rewrite the article using only independent sources.

Thanks you have been very helpful. Ceri Aber (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

MrsFeathers (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Furry Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Hi @MrsFeathers. Welcome to Wikipedia. Your draft is to be deleted due to it only existing to promote Furry Refuge which is prohibited on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia only hosts articles on notable topics: in this case you would have to prove Furry Refuge meets our Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. You would do this by finding significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources such as mainstream media.

If those sources do not exist then I am afraid no article can exist.

Let me know if you have any further questions. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! that was very helpful! MrsFeathers (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rustacian (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Stalwart Mail Server (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

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

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

Hi @Rustacian: modelling your draft on existing articles is, while a perfectly understandable thing to do, not a good idea. Those articles may well have their own problems, which you won't want to replicate. Instead, you need to ensure that your draft complies with the currently prevailing policies and guidelines. The notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. If such sources don't exist, then it won't be possible to have an article published on this subject, regardless of whether other articles exist which may fail the same guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing. Thanks for clarifying, those other articles were indeed created many years ago, probably before the Wikipedia notability guidelines started being enforced. I will look for other independent sources. Thanks again. Rustacian (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have tagged the three articles you mentioned as demonstrating insufficient evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rustacian, we have 6.9 million articles, many of which should either be deleted or dramatically improved. Do not model a draft on articles that are unassessed or stub class or start class. That's analogous to a student copying the work of another student who is failing the course. Instead, model Good articles and Featured articles that have gone through a serious peer review process. Cullen328 (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ashish982387 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Priya singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

tell me issue

Ashish982387 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashish982387: the issue is, as stated in the decline notice, that there is no evidence the subject is notable; the draft cites three sources, none of which is considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashish982387: We can't use IMDb or social media (no editorial oversight). We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous fact-checking and other editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Holgerj9 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:One Degree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

Questfeather (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Jason Mershon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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