Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jhirak.camel (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 19 March 2022 (→16:43:36, 19 March 2022 review of draft by Jhirak.camel: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, 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


March 12

00:12:36, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Mohsman


I have tried to publish a page for the American Society For Mohs Surgery (ASMS). There are currently two major Mohs surgery societies in the USA. The other group, the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), already has a Wikipedia page. So, I modeled the draft for the ASMS almost exactly the same as the ACMS article. Indeed, several of the secondary references are the same.

Almost immediately, it was rejected because the references " they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Yet, the references are in some cases identical and in all cases of the same significant coverage as the ACMS. Yet, the Wikipedia "Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)" guidelines says this does not apply to "non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams."

The ASMS is of nearly identical membership size and influence as the ACMS within the profession of dermatology. Please advise what additional references I can provide to prove "notability" as the secondary references already supplied would seem to be sufficient.

Thanks Mohsman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsman Please see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has no bearing on what happens to your draft. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate and simply has not been addressed yet(I may look at it after I post here). As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about.
The ACMS does not "have a Wikipedia page" here. Wikipedia has an article about the ACMS. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about an organization and what it does. A Wikipedia article about an organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. A professional association is not a non-profit educational institution(which is mostly high schools/universities) so it must meet that criteria. If no independent sources give the organization significant coverage, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time(even if another similar organization might). 331dot (talk) 00:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see some of the same problems with the ACMS article. I have marked it as problematic. I would advise against using other articles as a model unless they are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
thanks for your explanation. I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
The reason I noted the ACMS article is that their structure and function is nearly identical, and Mohs surgeons are often members of one or both. That is why I patterned the ASMS article on the ACMS one.
Thanks for the clarification on non-profits. I'm very new at editing pages and am clearly still on the steep portion of the curve.
Sincerely,
Mohsman (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:10:23, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Ronydip4


Ronydip4 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ronydip4 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is a long way from being a Wikipedia article. I might suggest that you use the new user tutorial and read Your First Article to learn more about Wikipedia, as well as spending much time editing existing articles, before attempting to create a new one, which is the hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

09:53:50, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Arbil44


Anne (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


May I have a second opinion, based on my "comment" following Clarityfiend's rejection? I would add, having studied the American Revolution for many years, I know for a fact that hundreds (thousands?) of Revolutionary War records have been lost or destroyed - especially, and particularly, where Militia officers are concerned. Robert Hicks did not claim a pension. Pension records are one of few surviving records for Militiamen, hence there are scarce sources for this particular officer. Mrs Cicero W. Harris makes the point that she has based her biographies on oral history passed down to her by the people who knew her subjects in their lifetimes. She thought Robert Hicks worthy of being her first-mentioned subject. This can be verified in her opening paragraph [1]. Could Cordless Larry comment, having suggested to me that I write this short article? Anne (talk) 09:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even in these better documented times, it is hard for a soldier to warrant an article. Just being brave isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You downgrade him further by calling him a "soldier", Clarityfiend. He was an officer. There are articles on Wikipedia for officers who have done less - qualifying simply because they were officers. Anne (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who for example? (Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came here for a "second opinion" Clarityfiend and yet you continue to express yours, which are known. I hope Cordless Larry will comment, since the article was written at his suggestion. He congratulated me; thought it would be accepted, but perhaps needed tweaking (without giving me specifics). Anne (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not blocking you from getting a second or third opinion. I'm just trying to help you understand why this man does not satisfy our notability standards (WP:GNG, WP:BIO). I'm afraid Cordless Larry has raised false hopes. If you check Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count, you will see that he doesn't appear on it. I, on the other hand, have created 3070 pages. But since you are offended by my efforts, I will cease and desist. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Had you "turned down" the AfC in pleasant terms, with some thought to the feelings of the creator - indeed, much more so, the subject ('Tis well that a State should often be reminded of her great citizens.) - I would probably have left it at that. But you chose wording which did, indeed, "offend me". Furthermore Clarityfiend, you demean Cordless Larry, who is as first-class Administrator and also a volunteer who replies to the millions of emails sent in by members of the public, and Wikipedians. I can only imagine that leaves him little time for more than his full time job. Anne (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember discussing this but I can't find that discussion now, Arbil44. I see that Rusalkii previously suggested that Hicks might be notable but that more coverage was needed. Are all the sources you can find now cited in the draft? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, your comments were in an email, last year. Your suggestion was, I think, on the talk page of the Battle of Guildford Courthouse, or the wp article for a descendant of Hicks - whose name now escapes me. I will try to find your email again and email it back! However, the article is as sourced as it is possible for me to make it. I have explained that it would have been helpful had Hicks claimed a pension, but he didn't - the family was very wealthy, and I believe such families did not claim pensions. Anne (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might be confusing me with Spencer at Talk:James W. Crawford Jr.#Ancestor of James Crawford, Arbil44. In any case, it doesn't really matter who suggested it - that doesn't really come into the notability question. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the email in which you made comments about the article and have returned it to you. Thank you for the reminder of James W. Crawford's name, which had escaped me, but as your email will attest, I am not confusing you with anyone else. Anne (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see from what you sent me that I congratulated you on creating the draft, which isn't quite the same as suggesting that you write it. But none of this really helps the matter at hand, which is whether the draft is acceptable. Can other reviewers comment on that, please? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the sources, Wheeler- good source, Torch Light - Assuming the transcription is true and accurate, appears to be a good source(partisan paper of its time but that's not disqualifying). Its a good start but then you get to Spangler, Dar, Hicks, & Mayflower, none of which can contribute to notability. They prove existence, but existence is not notability. The lack of a third secondary source makes me agree that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines.Slywriter (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search of Google Books suggests there might be other sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Harris, Mrs Cicero W. (1878) Early Times In Granville County. Transcribed and contributed by Tina Tarlton Smith The Torch Light. p.1
Wow, thank you Cordless Larry! The first thing I did was to contact the people in Granville County (---@granvillecounty.org) and asked them if there were any sources of information about the Hicks family. The man in question was a close personal friend of James W. Crawford, so I thought I was right where I needed to be. But I was told a resounding "no" (other than the sources I have used) so, thinking I had gone to the horse's mouth, I only searched Hathitrust, but not Google books. I have my time cut out for me now, looking through that lot! I am so grateful to you for this help. Anne (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cordless Larry, that was an interesting exercise. It is no wonder I did not find these books on Hathitrust, because virtually all of them have been written in the 20th and 21st centuries, so the contents are copyrighted and only snippet views available. Really frustrating because a few of them would have been fascinating for me to read. I think they all relate to "the" Hicks family, in one way or another, which shows that they will always be integral to the history of America. I haven't, however, found the "golden nugget" which would change the situation on Wikipedia. I still think it is sad that such outstanding bravery is considered to be of no value whatsoever. Today, he would have been awarded the Victoria Cross. Please would you delete the draft and send it to its Wikipedia graveyard since I would like to put this chapter firmly behind me now? Many thanks. Anne (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before requesting deletion of the article, Arbil44, you might want to check whether any of the books are available to borrow electronically here, Arbil44, in case it helps you find something not visible via Google Books. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A kind thought. I did check on this one Brunswick County, Virginia, 1720-1975, but the answer was 'not available'. The sad fact is that this family were very involved in all aspects of life in New York, and the Southern States, in particular. I must console myself that they are mentioned here! ferry operation But the "outstanding" event was the act of bravery at Guildford Court House. This is of no interest to Wikipedia. This, plus the long wait, has been stressful for me, so I would like to put an end to it now, but thank you for your (as always) practical help. Anne (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Arbil44, draft now deleted. I'm sorry that this proved to be a waste of your time. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:10:11, 12 March 2022 review of submission by Mytom3

Dear, Team Why did you decline the page I created?

Mytom3 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mytom3 The reason for the decline was left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. Please review it, and the policies linked to therein, carefully, as well as Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:06:21, 12 March 2022 review of draft by 88.98.165.58


The citations mentioned include links to reputable sources, including a full writeup on Microsoft News specifically about 57Digital. But for some reason, the wikipedia page was rejected due to "mentions in passing". However, the sources are products created by 57Digital, and a full biography news article.

88.98.165.58 (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interview(the Microsoft News source you mention) is not acceptable, as it is a primary source. Sources must have significant coverage of the company itself, not just its products. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13

02:36:24, 13 March 2022 review of submission by 69.172.148.230

What is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia in the entry that I created? Thanks! 69.172.148.230 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept plagiarised or otherwise copy-pasted text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 02:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:43:09, 13 March 2022 review of draft by Thomas Meng


Hi, my article on the most popular testing framework in Python (programming language) Draft:Pytest was declined for lack of secondary sources. The reviewer gave some suggestions afterwards on my talk page, and I followed them by adding more sources, including two more published books. I think the article is in very good shape now, but the previous reviewer seems unreachable. Please help review this article and any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. Thomas Meng (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meng (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas Meng. The draft is in the submitted pool. It may be reviewed by the same editor who handled the first submission, or it may be reviewed by any of hundreds of other reviewers. The advantage of the latter is that the draft gets a fresh look by someone who may have different strengths, and may point out different problems. Submission and review is an iterative process. Please be patient, there are about 3000 other submissions waiting. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Worldbruce: Thanks for the explanation, and my apologies for being a bit impatient. But since Pytest is such a popular testing framework, I do worry that while in the long waiting process someone else might create a duplicate. Do you think it's a good idea to seek out a reviewer who knows Python programming to take a look at this article? Thomas Meng (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas Meng: In the decade or so of pytest's existence, no one else has written an encyclopedia article about it, so there's little risk of someone else doing so soon. And if they did, so what? There are no points here for being first. The purpose of Wikipedia is to give readers the best possible content. Whether that is arrived at by someone else editing something you started, or you editing something someone else started is immaterial. The draft is already advertised to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science and Wikipedia:WikiProject Software. That may shorten the review cycle by attracting a volunteer who would not be interested in reviewing any random draft, but one needn't be a Python programmer to evaluate the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas Meng, as someone familiar with python, I've taken a look and accepted the draft. The two published books seem more than adequate. Thank you for the article! Rusalkii (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii, thank you for reviewing! Thomas Meng (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

06:00:55, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Khabykalua9922


Khabykalua9922 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khabykalua9922: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. We have no interest in what you want to say about yourself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:19, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Vychpedia

Hello, how am I able to find more sources for Lisa Oxenham? Vychpedia (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vychpedia Use your preferred search engine, your local library, newspaper archives. A Wikipedia article is not for merely documenting the existence of a topic, but for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about a topic. If no such sources exist, showing how the topic meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability, the topic would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:44:35, 13 March 2022 review of submission by Beth Wimmer

Dear Missvain, and Hello Wikipedia Experts and Help Volunteers I'd like to ask for a re-review, and/or some advice with this article. I would very much like to write other articles on Wikipedia - and i do edit articles sometimes, fixing grammar, fixing broken links, etc - but I would like to know more about what makes a successful Wikipedia article. I have read many things on Wikipedia, and read the feedback about my first attempt at an article... and i've implemented the feedback into my own first article, "Draft: Manfred Little Konzett". I would like to engage in a tiny conversation with you, or someone, as to why my article doesn't show notability, in your opinions. I have linked, within my article, to many other musicians' articles and many of them are very noteworthy. Some of the other musicians to whom I have linked my article (to their Wikipedia articles) do not seem very noteworthy at all, yet they HAVE Wikipedia articles about them. So my big, long question is: Why would Wikipedia say that a man who is still living, in his 40s, who has a giant, self-made business after having grown up on an Austrian farm, who is a keen networker, bringing together many aspects of music-gear manufacturers, a man who receives sponsorship from major microphone, headphones, and cable manufacturers (and those businesses' Wikipedia articles are now linked to Manfred Little Konzett's); a man who is a sought-after (by famous musicians: Judith Hill, Fred Wesley) music engineer, music producer and musician (drummer), who has been nominated for national music awards (in Austria), and who has worked with many famous people (who are noteworthy and have Wikipedia articles (Simon Phillips, Fred Wesley, Judith Hill, Adam Ben Ezra) of their own... and lastly, a man (Manfred Little Konzett) who has received citizenship in one of the hardest countries in the world from which to receive citizenship (Liechtenstein)...how is this a person who is not noteworthy? I don't ask because I have personal ties to the subject; i don't. I ask because in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people whom I know, who know this famous engineer, producer, musician (Manfred Little Konzett) either personally, or who know of him, all agree that this is a noteworthy person. A noteworthy person who will continue to work with more famous people, receive more press and notoriety. I also have in my possession, with permission to use, high quality, black and white professional photos to add to this article; yet they were rejected and deleted by Wikipedia. I knew it could and would take quite some time to have my first article published, but I really thought that Manfred Little Konzett would be a 'safe' person about whom to write my first Wikipedia article. So today I kindly ask for a re-review, and I truly look forward to your feedback. Thank you, Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)beth wimmer Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Wimmer (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Because we don't do notability-by-osmosis. Being associated with people who are themselves notable per Wikipedia's definition does not make one notable themselves. I'll look over your sources shortly; watch this space. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beth Wimmer: Please refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
Barring the three German newspaper sources (and those need someone who can read German to assess them) all of your sources are completely useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano - thank you so much for your quick and thorough input! ok, it helps to know and understand these things. ok, i'll see if there is some 'valid' new press. maybe it would be better if a german person wrote this article in german, for the german Wikipedia pages. ? thank you again! Beth Wimmer (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly; I cannot speak to the German-language Wikipedia's policies as that is a different project entirely. Different language-editions of Wikipedia set their own policies. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

19:12:42, 13 March 2022 review of draft by Mdgtrust


Mdgtrust (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/chop-suey-history on Chop Suey.
Authentic Chinese chef & Cecilia Chang, ( mentioned) refused to serve it !!! Mdgtrust (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]



I have been reading Wikipedia for a long time. The article you have on CHOP SUEY is NOT factual; just ask REAL CHINESE . I am a retired Bicultural & Bilingual Chinese educator.

Mdgtrust Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. If you have such sources describing what chop suey is in China, please offer them on the talk page of the existing article, Talk:Chop suey. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


March 14

00:31:18, 14 March 2022 review of draft by Taki60


Taki60 (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have spent more than one day time to get the page complete. It is purely for the community's good after I notice a lot of misinformation online.

It is a list of manufactories with additional information for the community. I don't know why the page content doesn't meet the content requirement. I haven't had all information filled in due to my limited available time. I hope to create the groundwork to let the community fill in any missing pieces. Please spell it out if anything is missing for publishing, but not a simple declined note.

Thanks.

@Taki60: We aren't a directory. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:36:50, 14 March 2022 review of submission by Wikiwikiuser23


Wikiwikiuser23 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the entry rejected?

Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about someone and their accomplishments, it is a place to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this page was not approved. Can anyone please inform me? Wikiwikiuser23 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwikiuser23 For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections. I've answered your question here. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

05:59:47, 14 March 2022 review of submission by Madhukaramgowda


Madhukaramgowda (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Madhukaramgowda: You don't ask a question, so I'll suggest you read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:46:33, 14 March 2022 review of submission by ChinthakaGK

If someone has visibility on my first submission which is National Green Front, what is the status of this article, it is a bit complicated to see the current status as it is not listed under the Pending AfC submissions.ChinthakaGK (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC) ChinthakaGK (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChinthakaGK: You have resubmitted Draft:National Green Front and its currently pending review. If yu don't see a giant yellow box at the draft's top, bypass your browser cache. Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victor Schmidt Thank you very much for the update. Yes big yellow box is there, my worry was its been a few weeks and neither alerts nor couldn't find it under the pending list. ChinthakaGK (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChinthakaGK: The sourcing is insufficient to demonstrate notability of the organization, and the tone is too essay-like. You should not have to use the organization's own web site to tell us about them. The lack of independent media coverage in the draft suggests the group isn't notable. You will need to find more sourcing. Also, see WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE and WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:14:56, 14 March 2022 review of draft by Jwyatt123


Jwyatt123 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings, I hope to publish the draft for Nathan Kuppermann, chair of our Department at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine. I am unfamiliar with the submission process of Wikipedia and am unclear if patience or further information is needed.

Thank you.

Jennifer Wyatt

Jwyatt123 As noted on your draft, the review process "may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,853 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient, a volunteer will eventually review it. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:05:59, 14 March 2022 review of draft by Mmt21pf


My submission continues to get rejected. Can you please provide any insights on how I can improve so that is it approved.

Mmt21pf (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmt21pf It has been declined, not rejected. I can't say anything beyond what reviewers have said. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. I had been declined several times. I'm not sure exactly how to correct in order to be approved. Does it make sense for me to delete and start over, submitting just a small portion at a time for approval? Or should I just trim the current submission back? Any thoughts you could provide on the best strategy for gaining approval would be greatly appreciated! Thanks. Mmt21pf (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmt21pf What are your three best sources? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PR Newswire, Business Insider and Forbes. Mmt21pf (talk) 12:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmt21pf: The problems with those references are that they are respectively: a press release (not independent), a primary source interview without independent analysis by the interviewer (not independent), and a self-published blog by a non-staffer (not reliable). Using lousy sources like those is doubtless part of why the tone of the draft is promotional. Forbes shouldn't be cited at all. The other two may be cited, but only for non-controversial statements, and the bulk of any article should be based on independent sources. If the difficulty is that you didn't understand what a good source is, it's an independent, secondary, reliable source which contains significant coverage of your topic. If those are really the best sources that can be found, it's time to give up on the topic and move on to something else. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the insight it helps me in better understanding what type of sources are acceptable here. Mmt21pf (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mmt21pf: I'm going to jump in and add to what Worldbruce said. Forbes is a great reliable news source site and should absolutely be used, UNLESS the author is labeled as "a Forbes Contributor" or a member of one of the various "Forbes Councils". Those are not journalists, and with uncertain financial motivations, the reliability and notability imparted on the subject by this source is questionable. Also, you should not use speaker sites as sources. Those are controlled by the subject. You also have some syntax problems. Check out WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Super helpful! Thank you so much I really appreciate this feedback. This is my first time writing a Wikipedia page so just trying my best to understand what is required. The subject I am writing about is notable, it's just a matter of ensuring the information I"m providing is coming from a 100% neutral point of view. Mmt21pf (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 15

00:05:45, 15 March 2022 review of draft by 2601:642:4C0C:C83:445B:87C1:46B1:58EC


Hello,

I made the Wiki "Drama.gg (Draft:Drama.gg)" I submitted it & has a couple questions on why it was removed:

- All sources were from the UK goverments website, or the forum site (drama.gg, the wiki's topic), - I am giving a open view about the forum & not being a one-sided opinion, I showed posts from Drama.gg to show a reference on almost everything. "Submission is about web content not yet shown to meet notability guidelines " Could you please be more vague, if a wiki about doxbin was allowed, why isn't this wiki allowed?

Thanks.

2601:642:4C0C:C83:445B:87C1:46B1:58EC (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean "Wikipedia article", not "a wiki". A wiki is an entire website of which Wikipedia is one example.
Please read other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. It could be that this other article is also inappropriate. Because this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about.
None of the sources you offer seem to be independent reliable sources. Any article about a website must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the website, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable website. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

01:06:32, 15 March 2022 review of submission by Kafoxe

Hello, I'd like to inquire about the declining of my draft for Dave Thomas. It was not approved on the basis that it fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, though the latter states "or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". Thomas was an elected official in the Alabama House of Representatives, so would he not qualify in that regard? Most politicians serving in state legislatures have pages of their own, from what I can tell, some of whom I've worked on articles for in the past. I'd also like to know how specifically it fails GNG, so that the article could potentially be improved in the future and establish notability. I feel that many of the references in the article are rather in-depth, especially the ones concerning his gubernatorial candidacy, and come from reliable, secondary sources. Thank you. Kafoxe (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kafoxe: While I will not speculate or offer further help on this, you are indeed correct that being elected to state office is a WP:NPOLITICIAN pass, and that that aspect of the decline seems incorrect. @PK650: Care to justify your decline? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 05:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I somehow missed his stint in the Alabama House of Representatives! Thank you for the ping. PK650 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

12:14:55, 15 March 2022 review of draft by MfayePEI


Hi I'm trying to upload a photo of Adam Fenech. The photo is his, he paid for a photographer to take the image but I did take it from the internet. How can I bypass the error message as I do not have the original.

MfayePEI (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MfayePEI: When one hires a photographer, one may receive a photograph, but the copyright normally remains with the photographer. So you may not upload the image or use it here. Also, if you're close enough to Fenech to be getting a photo from him, you may have a conflict of interest, which you should declare. I'll leave more information about that on your talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only focuses on the text. 331dot (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Worldbruce, he has sent me an image so I will be able to use that, correct? As long as I declare the conflict of interest? Thank you! MfayePEI (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MfayePEI: No, physical possession of an image is not the same as owning the copyright. Only the copyright holder (in almost all cases the photographer) may license the image so that it can be used on Wikipedia. Instructions for how they can do so are given at WP:DONATEIMAGE. Licensing the image allows anyone—not just Wikipedia—to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work, including for commercial use. Most commercial photographers are unwilling to grant such a license, in which case their work may not be used on Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:00:19, 15 March 2022 review of draft by RetailClothing


Hi, I've created my first draft page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:St95 , please could I have some feedback and advice before I publish. Thanking you

RetailClothing (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RetailClothing: The tone is wildly inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, and more like an enthusiastic press releases. Even worse, the sourcing doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. You need to find things that others unconnected with the brand have written about it, rather than listing its own websites as sources. Promotional sites that make money by including affiliate links are frowned upon, since they are only writing about the subject to make money from clicks. With better sourcing, and a more subdued tone, you might have a chance having a standalone article accepted. If not, consider adding brief info info to Massimo Osti and Christopher Raeburn (designer). TechnoTalk (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:33:26, 15 March 2022 review of draft by EthanWinters1


EthanWinters1 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've working on developing a Wiki Article for Filmmaker and Academic Britta Sjogren! Unfortunately, The last time I attempted to publish it was declined by one of your editors due to notability standards... I looked over the references that were provided and tried to make revisions accordingly. (i.e. adding reliable third party references, adding more detailed information of her career as an independent filmmaker, etc) I'd like to know if there is anything you would suggest adding to her draft before I attempt to submit it for publication. Any specific information would help so I know exactly what your editors are looking for!

Thanks,

EthanWinters1

@EthanWinters1: An easier way to proceed is to take everything that's been written about the filmmaker in independent third party sources (self submitted bios and event catalogs tend to not quite meet the level of independence required to demonstrate notability) and write the article that way. If by doing that you find you don't have enough material for an article, there's little chance that the article will be approved. I didn't go through all the sources you included, but I can see that the first half of the draft is unsourced, and many of the sources appear inferior for reasons stated above. Including unsourced details of her personal life and career only suggest you might have a conflict of interest and need to read WP:COI. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response and the information! I went through and recited her whole biography section (focusing more on independent third party sources) Including pdfs of older print News articles detailing her personal life and early career achievements. I'd like to keep the bios and event catalogs as references, as I am an academic and feel like the need to cite all my sources. Also I was wondering, since her few of her individual films have Wiki pages themselves, shouldn't that help her notability index? Just a thought!
Please let me know what you think!
EthanWinters1 EthanWinters1 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EthanWinters1 There are still a few subjective statements, and I'd break up the large paragraph on what she's done, but IMO, the references you have added since Rusalkii declined the article now seem to meet notability. In *general* imdb.com is not good for references, but I *think* the event winner lists like you have included is OK. I'd like to see if Rusalkii has an opinion, but if no one else chimes in here, I'll approve it in a few days. (Leave a note on my talk page, if I forget)Naraht (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Naraht Thank you for the message! I'll go ahead and break up the paragraph into two parts (Academic & Filmmaker careers, respectfully). I compeletly understand about IMDb. Fantastic! I'll message you again if there are no other comments on the Draft.
Thanks again, talk to you soon!
EthanWinters1 EthanWinters1 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done a full re-review, so no comment on whether it would be accepted, but that does look much better and I have no objections to another editor accepting.
I would however replace IMDb even for an uncontroversial list like that, it's user-generated and is no more a good source than Wikipedia itself (that is to say, often right, but not good to cite). Rusalkii (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok great! No worries, I replaced the IMDb reference with a Third Party Source from IndieWire which lists the Winners from SXSW from 1997. Anything else that stands out as problematic? Just want to make sure everything looks solid on your end. Thanks for your help! EthanWinters1 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted and Published. Still things to do in making categories, and there may be more to put in the infobox. Also linked from other pages in mainspace.Naraht (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, I'll take a look at those spaces but thanks again so much! EthanWinters1 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20:54:24, 15 March 2022 review of draft by SoyokoAnis


I am asking if anyone is interested in helping find sources for the Danganronpa Decadence draft so it can be submitted. Additionally, if anyone is interested in expanding that would be well appreciated.

SoyokoAnis - talk 20:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SoyokoAnis I suggest asking at WikiProject Video Games. S0091 (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Thank you. Happy editing! SoyokoAnis - talk | PLEASE PING 06:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:38:42, 15 March 2022 review of submission by Miketakla86

I have added notable references. Miketakla86 (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miketakla86 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. If you have new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you must appeal to the reviewer directly. Please keep in mind that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:39:19, 15 March 2022 review of submission by Wikiwikiuser23

Hello, can anyone please explain why this entry is labelled as follows: "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". I asked three times, but no one responded. Here are the main points in the link. Can any editor guide me to which criterion this article applies. I really hope these these editorial decisions are not random based on the names of the people in the entries. Thank you!

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute

Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility

Wikipedia has no firm rules Wikiwikiuser23 (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwikiuser23 Wikipedia is not a place to post what I assume is your resume and/or list of accomplishments. Wikipedia is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about a topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media or a personal website(which you seem to have). 331dot (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 16

01:05:49, 16 March 2022 review of submission by 2601:601:9601:1370:799C:5F72:C8F2:115A

because it will make people smort idc if you reject it, im just doing it for memes love you all! 2601:601:9601:1370:799C:5F72:C8F2:115A (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't submit biographies as memes. It's incredibly disrespectful to the person who's the subject of the article and we can't accept unreferenced, jokey crap. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 01:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're doing for "teh lulz" then please find another hobby and stop wasting our time. --Kinu t/c 07:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Draft:Tyrone_Evans_Clark

Hello, I am reposting since my last post on March 9 went unanswered and got archived. Also Praxidicae since you are the one that did this, do you care to explain why totally decline this without review of the new and improved page from the last AFD???

This article got declined and the tag said to ask for help here, without any other explanation and also I was not given a chance to resubmit again. First, I am a paid editor hired by the subject to help him and I have already disclosed my association. Second, as the subject has explained to me and as you can see from the history, the page was declined before and deleted in AFD, but this version of the page is completely different, much improved and he has had many new articles about him since 2020, so the page should not be solely declined based on the past AFD and should be looked at from scratch. Please let me know if someone can review it and tell me what the issues are. Subject has over 50 citations used here, and probably at least 30+ more that I didn't use. Johnmclane2 (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to add that he meets WP:ENT due to several main roles on several TV shows, as follows:
Catfish on MTV
Dating #NoFilter on E! and VH1
Phone Swap on FOX
Women of Wrestling, Several episodes on AXS TV
Magic For Humans on Netflix
Face the Truth on NBC
Justice for All with Judge Cristina Perez on Court TV
Investigating Free Money on FOX

Thanks. Johnmclane2 (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnmclane2. You plainly are not here to build an encyclopedia, but merely to promote Clark. An actor whose roles in notable productions are: underground artist, himself, clubgoer, uncredited, Papua New Guinea warrior, and a party on one episode of a dramatized court show, is clearly not a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Rejection of the draft is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing will make it acceptable. Volunteers do not intend to review it again. You may wish to explore alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for your writing. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, attacking Wikipedians is against policy, Tyrone is not the only edit or submission I have done and not the only reason I am here. Check my history and I plan to do more edits in the future. My own edits or history should be a factor in deciding Tyrone's faith. I have disclosed my association as being a paid editor, so there are no UPE issues.
Second, some of the shows or roles he has been in may be insignificant, but he clearly meets WP:GNG by having significant news coverage. He is also a movie producer and director. His movie "Homeless Sam & Sally" has gotten significant coverage and awards. He has also written 2 books that have reviews online.
Clearly, his past declines and UPE have been an issue. He may have been less notable before, but since the last submission about 2 years ago, he has had a lot more coverage and someone needs to look at it rather than saying it was previously declined and don't ever try again. I don't expect that my arguments would change your mind, but it is quite sad that many talented artists and entertainers are denied entry into Wikipedia just because many admins hate paid editors and mainly decide a page is not qualified because it was done by a paid editor.
And here is a source analysis for a few of them, but I bet you will find an issue with every single one, so I am probably wasting my time. Many are new sources since the last decline, so someone should tell us why they are not accepable:
Thanks.Johnmclane2 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spamming this board with useless sources will not help the cause. You are trying to string together passing mentions to create notability for someone who is not notable by wikipedia's standards. Existence is not notability, all you have accomplished is proof of existence.Slywriter (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least 4 of these sources have Wikipedia pages and are notable publications. Majority of these also meet or are indepth (are not just passing mentions) and meet the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:BLPRS standards. Rather than calling me a spammer, post a response next to each of provided sources and explain why they do not meet the guidelines. Please check Good Men Project -Flaunt Magazine -Hip Hop Weekly - FilmInk - as a start since these all have Wiki pages. Tell me how these are not meeting Wiki standards? Johnmclane2 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see an argument for the movie being notable. As to the subject you have cited passing mentions, interviews and at least once source with no byline. In short, notability still not established.Slywriter (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

11:10:02, 16 March 2022 review of submission by Udo Otto Müller

Ich will Deutsche und Engländer verbinden durch meinen umfangreichen Artikel Hammerwerk_(Uhrschlag) aus der deutschen Wikipedia. Er entstand in langer Teamarbeit 2021 und wurde von mir am 23.12.2021 ca. 19:30 Uhr in die wikipedia.de eingesetzt. Der Big Ben in London als britisches Nationaldenkmal ist dort mit Gummipuffer (Federwirkung) für Uhrschlag enthalten und von mir belegt aus internet-archive.org. Im Artikel wird die 1000 Jahre alte Technik und die physikalischen Zusammenhänge fundamental dargestellt. Das berechtigt, Bestandteil von Wikipedia zu werden! Nun wird die muttersprachliche Hilfe eines(r) englischsprechenden Wikipedianers(in) bei der Übersetzung aus dem Deutschen benötigt. Ich glaube daran, Sie helfen! § Udo Otto Müller (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Udo Otto Müller I have used machine translation to find that you have said this:
"I want to connect Germans and English through my extensive article Hammerwerk_(Uhrschlag) from the German Wikipedia. It was created in long teamwork in 2021 and was posted by me on December 23, 2021 at around 7:30 p.m. on wikipedia.de. The Big Ben in London as a British national monument is included there with a rubber buffer (spring action) for the clock strike and is documented by me from internet-archive.org. In the article, the 1000-year-old technology and the physical relationships are fundamentally presented. That entitles you to be part of Wikipedia! Now the native-speaker help of an English-speaking Wikipedian is needed for the translation from German. I believe you help! §"
I am not 100% certain what you wish to happen next. Ich bin mir nicht 100%ig sicher, was du als nächstes tun möchtest. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FaddleTalk to me, Thank you verry much for machine-translation my wish. I give now a link to german-wikipedia article Hammer_mechanism_to_clock_strike; [[1]]. I try to find a helper to translate the article from German to English. Perhaps You are the helper? Your afactionetelly german wikipedian Udo Otto Müller (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FaddleTalk to me, Danke Dir sehr für die Maschinen-Übersetzung meines Wunsches. Nun gebe ich hier einen link zum deutschen wikipedia.de article Hammer_mechanism_to_clock_strike; [[2]]. Ich suche dafür einen englischen Wikipedia-Helfer, der den Artikel in seine Muttersprache übersetzt. Es gibt sonst kein Verständnis. Oder, was ist Deine Meinung zur präzisen Übersetzung? Dein Dir zugetaner deutscher Wikipedianer § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udo Otto Müller (talk • contribs) 12:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC) §[reply]

17:56:47, 16 March 2022 review of submission by 82.113.227.110

I am saw this man at a business event for the Earth Prize. He seems interesting an notable for a wikipedia page. Especially due to his celebrity father and his work with the earth prize. 82.113.227.110 (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. As the draft was rejected, it won't be considered further. Notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:43, 16 March 2022 review of submission by Ali777kk


Ali777kk (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:47:43, 16 March 2022 review of submission by Fastcarguy21

I have made significant changes to this page, as instructed, in hopes that it will now be approved for publication. However, I'm having a hard time finding the correct place to actually submit these changes for approval since it was last rejected. Can you help me? Fastcarguy21 (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fastcarguy21 Rejection means resubmission is not possible. I've examined your changes as the reviewer that rejected it, and your changes are just more of the same inappropriate sources. 331dot (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for you for quick response. I have two questions. At this point, is the best way to submit the content for approval to create an entirely new page? Also, are you able to tell me which sources (or which type of sources) are deemed inappropriate? Fastcarguy21 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fastcarguy21 Resubmission is not possible for this website at this time, whether it is rewritten or not. This is not permanent, but there needs to be a dramatic change in circumstances for it to be reconsidered. Any article about this company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling about the existence of the company or the mere reporting of its activities and describes the impact of the company itself on its industry or its community or anything beyond itself. The recognition and awards mean little unless those awards themselves merit Wikipedia articles; for example, the South Dakota SBA's award does not have an article about the award itself. Please read Your First Article but you will have to set aside this topic for now. You are welcome to contribute to any of the over 6 million articles that Wikipedia has; I might recommend this as a way to build up experience and knowledge before attempting to create a new article, which is the hardest task to perform here. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 17

07:02:11, 17 March 2022 review of submission by 107.185.157.67


Why Kale My Name doesn’t have page? How do we change that? One of the most popular vegan business in the country, someone should help source this properly.

107.185.157.67 (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. I'm curious as to how you came to be aware of the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:36, 17 March 2022 review of submission by Seniorexpat

My submission was initially declined on 6 December 2021 by one reviewer who left the issue open for other AFC reviewers. Since then I have tried to improve the submission by:

1. getting a link to an honor from the subject's most recent university, and

2. linking to a new honor from peers at an international professional conference.

Therefore I am of good hope that eventually the page will be accepted. The basic problem is that the subject earned his notability more through teaching/business coaching than through publishing. The former is harder to document. Don't you think that the three months' waiting time is enough to deserve a new review?

Seniorexpat (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seniorexpat As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,964 pending submissions waiting for review.". Reviews are conducted by volunteers in no particular order, doing what they can when they can. Please continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

13:41:59, 17 March 2022 review of submission by Joaocuginotti


Hi! I would really appreciate a reassessment of my draft, due to I believe it is a notable topic to be included on Wikipedia. If there is not enough information, I could improve on that.

Thank you!

Joaocuginotti (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. The album does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of notability, as noted by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joaocuginotti: I added some recent coverage, and notified the rejecting editor, asking for the rejection to be reconsidered. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:34:29, 17 March 2022 review of submission by Mfulton05


Mfulton05 (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I added more articles to the page and added in more citations to info that did not have them.

@Mfulton05: There's not enough media coverage of him to meet the notability threshold. See WP:GNG. Notability isn't inherited from his clients. The article has been rejected and will not be considered further. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me understand the notability threshold. I added a bunch of articles that he is the subject of. There are other NFL agents that have similar pages and use similar references. What type of additional articles would be necessary that are not already included? Mfulton05 (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mfulton05 Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other articles has no bearing on the acceptance of your draft, it could be that those other articles are inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, make sure they are classified as good articles. If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not using that as an argument to get this article published but rather as an question including an example to inquire as to why my article is not approved. As far as I can tell my sources meet the requirements. I am hoping to gain more knowledge as to why this was rejected and what I can do to improve it. Mfulton05 (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mfulton05 Your claim to notability for this person seems to be that they have notable clients. Notability is not inherited by association. Any article about Mr. Perzley must summarize independent reliable sources that discuss him personally, not just tell us who is clients are or what he does for them. Has he had an impact on his field? Created new negotiation techniques? Been involved in litigation that has been impactful to football? (rhetorical questions) Things like that. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do I show that this is not my claim? Several of the articles that are referenced discuss the contributions he has made to the industry. When those who submitted drafts before me, tried to summarize those contributions the article was rejected for sounding like a resume. I can see that in the submission history. What can I do to better reference those articles while still falling in line with all of the guidelines? An example of such an article is: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/columnists/christopher-maag/2018/09/13/whirlwind-life-nfl-players-agent/916130002/ Mfulton05 (talk) 18:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That piece is an interview with him, which is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more articles in the references and throughout the sources that further show the notability of the subject. The subject is a prominent NFL agent who has led the industry. Mfulton05 (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mfulton05 Please do not create additional discussion sections; continue to use this existing one. Restating the same arguments, however, will not help. The draft was rejected and won't be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have new information not considered by the reviewer, please appeal to them directly. 331dot (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

17:48:26, 17 March 2022 review of draft by Shariba


Hello, I am new to this process. I've uploaded a photo to WikiCommons, but don't know how to insert it in the article. I accidentally uploaded a second version of the photograph... same result. I know the photographer, but the subject of the article says the photo can be freely used. It is everywhere, in reviews of this author's work. Thank you for any help you can give me.

Article: Draft:Gale_Massey

Shariba (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shariba Just FYI images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only focuses on the text and sources. That said, it is much easier if the photographer is the one to upload the image. The subject of the image does not usually have copyright unless they have a contract or legal agreement to assign them copyright. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I assume photos uploaded to WikiCommons by the original photographer will be acceptable. I'm still working with editors on the text content. Thank you for your reply and the information. Shariba (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

18:23:11, 17 March 2022 review of draft by Niroshwanasinghe


Please help me to uplift the standard of my draft in order to meet the expected criteria of wiki. I have cited the work with almost all available sources. Almost all sources are published by Sri Lanka Air Force as its official publications. Other sources are the documents and certificates which do not fall into wiki referencing criteria. I have adjusted the language as well to meet the standard. Pleas advise me clearly on how to go about this. These details were found out as a project on this character's leadership qualities. I cannot refer to the project report since it is not published and will not be in the future too. Thank you.Niroshwanasinghe (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC) Niroshwanasinghe (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niroshwanasinghe If a subject does not receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

21:53:25, 17 March 2022 review of submission by WMD RJA

Please can you let me know what can be done to make this acceptable to include on Wikipedia. Atlantic Money is a new company, well-financed and looking to make a difference to FX exchange. This page simply reflects details of the company so far. WMD RJA (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WMD RJA The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. New companies almost never merit articles; companies must be established and receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Your draft is only sourced to announcements of company activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:11:32, 17 March 2022 review of draft by L.knight9604


Our article was declined due to reference not qualifying to be notable enough. We took the feedback, replaced the references, and got declined again. Are you able to provide feedback on what references should be used or taken out so that the article can be approved? Please advise. L.knight9604 (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi L.knight9604. Please clarify what you mean by "our" and "we". The policy on Wikipedia is "one user—one account". Usernames should not be shared by multiple individuals. Are you speaking on behalf of the company? --Worldbruce (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 18

06:03:13, 18 March 2022 review of draft by Equyl


My draft was declined. I am asking for help to point me out what lines are problematic so i can properly form them. Equyl (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

08:58:04, 18 March 2022 review of draft by Damien74~enwiki


It seems this post has been rejected for two reasons.

The first is that it was deemed to be promotional. I basically took the format of an approved page for a similar company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiz_(company) and then removed/changed the information to match Nucleus Wealth. There are no adjectives in the post, and so I'm struggling to find which words to remove to make it more neutral. I'm guessing maybe that the reviewer is objecting to the inclusion of awards? I included the awards because other approved pages have them, and also the awards show recognition from independent industry bodies. If the reviewer is objecting to the awards, are they objecting to any award being shown, or is it that Wikipedia does not recognise these two industry bodies?

Second, it has been rejected for the references not showing "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I used an article that is solely about Nucleus, published in Australia's largest financial newspaper (https://www.afr.com/wealth/superannuation/nucleus-wealth-the-latest-kid-in-the-super-block-20180109-h0fh28), and awards from two different leading financial planning industry bodies. Can you comment on why these are inappropriate - i.e. are you suggesting these are not reputable sources, or is it that we haven't included enough links?

We do have plenty more links where Nucleus Wealth was used as an expert by a news organisation. For example The Australian newspaper (https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/markets/picking-the-right-time-to-reenter-the-market/news-story/c9bd304a0ab0a2957802db4672ffb529), the Guardian newspaper (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/10/its-not-capitalism-why-are-global-financial-markets-zooming-up), The Motley Fool (https://www.fool.com.au/2021/03/05/how-to-invest-in-inflation/), Canstar (https://www.canstar.com.au/superannuation/super-strategies-40s/), Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-csl-analysis-idUSKBN27D0ES) and many others. It seemed more relevant to use Australia's largest financial newspaper writing only about Nucleus as a source.

Thanks

Damien74~enwiki (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damien74~enwiki I see you declared a COI; if you work for the company, you must make the stricter paid editing declaration, a Terms of Use requirement.
Please see other stuff exists The existence of other articles has no bearing on yours; each is judged individually. It could be that these other articles are also inappropriate. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
Awards should only be mentioned if the award itself merits an article, like Academy Award or Grammy Award. Any article about your company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Such sources do not include press releases, announcements of routine business activities, or interviews. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:17:53, 18 March 2022 review of submission by Gryllida

Could you please check notability, this sporting group has achieved recognition on international level. If it looks okay then I will submit for review. Otherwise I will implement suggestions as per your feedback. Draft initially authored by ShayanXtreme but it had issues with plagiarism and needed to be re-written from scratch. Thank you for your time.

Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 23:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:07, 18 March 2022 review of submission by Andylanterman

I am requesting a review of my submission for the mobile game Street Kart Racing. I'm not sure why it was denied/rejected. Please advise.


Andylanterman (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andylanterman, find three reliable sources(reviews usually count), then take a look at this handy guide to your first article, finally take a look at some other games that have articles for what the structure of an article should look like. From there you can take another shot at submitting the article. It was declined, not rejected so the reviewer saw potential.Slywriter (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 19

Request on 14:19:50, 19 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Andylanterman


Which sources are not reliable? Every source I've listed is a direct link to the track or person's personal website. Can't get much more reliable than that.

This process is so exhausting. I change what you ask and then something else is wrong.

Andylanterman (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andylanterman You have two references. One is a user rating site, and is of no use to you. The other seems to show that it exists. Ok, it exists. But youi have not verified notability. I exist. I am not notable. Yoiu exist. Are you notable?
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

16:43:36, 19 March 2022 review of draft by Jhirak.camel


Hi,

I've had a draft entry declined for Blanche Brenton Carey because "it is not adequately supported by reliable sources". I have included many sources and published citations and so I'm a bit confused. Is it because there hasn't been a book written about her? There have been many published articles written by her and others about her which I've mentioned; are they not reliable sources?

Any help would be really appreciated.

Thank you,


Jhirak.camel (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhirak.camel The challenge you have is that large swathes of facts that you assert have no references. It is that simple. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so for example I have stated that Blanche was a missionary therefore I should add a citation to the published article, is this what you mean?
Thanks Jhirak.camel (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1078059163"