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 80.155.22.6 (talk) at 06:25, 9 October 2023 (→06:46, 4 October 2023 review of submission by 80.155.22.6: 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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


October 3

04:51, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Basava Vinay Vp Writer

Because I am a writer to spread good message to the society Basava Vinay Vp Writer (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Basava Vinay Vp Writer: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you want to tell the world about yourself, open up a blog or join some social media platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

Hi Greenman how are you? I respect your comment, but this is not a promotional entry. The person concerned only operates in Turkey, but I made an entry in English. This is not for promotional purposes. He is also the brother of the previous finance minister. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nureddin_Nebati) Can you help with publication at this point? Good work. Origagari (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Origagari: there is nothing of encyclopaedic value in this draft, and it all seems to come from you or the subject or some other non-independent party, as opposed to being a summary of reliable published sources. Therefore, I'd say it very much is WP:YESPROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:31, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Nook768

A ton of other people using wikipedia made SCP things but mine was deleted? I just dont get it. It was also considered Vandilisim. It was a fictionol SCP character. Please tell me and explain why it was deleted and none other SCP things were deleted Nook768 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@nook768:
A ton of other people using wikipedia made SCP things but mine was deleted?
eh?? what?? where??
and if you want to write scps, go to the scp wiki. ltbdl (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Iohannz

Hello! Could you please explain why my article submission was declined? Iohannz (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you a message on the draft as to why it was declined(not only the box at the top, but a message directly underneath it). Please review it carefully. Do you have more specfic questions about it?
Please detail your relationship with Gengiuri; you must have one since you took an image of her. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was needed for a website development I took part Iohannz (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer my question, but if you have an association with her, you need to declare a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:13, 3 October 2023 review of submission by ASKanetkar

For sharing better information on sample cooler 

ASKanetkar (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ASKanetkar absolutely not. That is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Read WP:NOT. Qcne (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 3 October 2023 review of submission by EditCloud123

Hi,

Could we have the stop taken off this page please so we can work on revisions? EditCloud123 (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EditCloud123: as this has been rejected, you will need to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer.
Who is "we" in your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EditCloud23 You may make revisions, but the draft will not be considered again until you first appeal to rejecting reviewer, or failing that, convince the community here to allow you to resubmit it(but you would need to demonstrate that the rejecting reviewer made a gross error in policy or judgement). 331dot (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, I have received no appeal. However I take this discussion as an appeal. Since EditCloud123 has been deceived into believing I have solicited money I do not believe it to be appropriate for me to respond, and recuse myself. May I ask you to act as if the appeal were made to you, please?
My rationales are all public on Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks 331dot (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "we" refers to the company, i have declared a conflict of interest. The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money to publish it and going back and forth publishing it to show that he could and then deleting it to demand the money, then put a stop on it when we refused. - i do have emails to show this, but its evidenced where you can see the amount of edits "timtrent" has on it EditCloud123 (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123: that is a very serious charge, hope you're not making it lightly? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 it is likely you have been contacted by a scam ring who is impersonating @Timtrent. Please see the details of this known scam at WP:SCAM. Qcne (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impersonation doesn't check out here. The moves to mainspace were not done by Timtrent, as EditCloud123 suggested, and they never said the UPE identified as Timtrent in the emails. They have just referred to the amounts of edits by Timtrent. And somehow they make no comment of the confirmed accounts who _are_ the UPE in contact with EditCloud123. If they think they fell for a scam, they should submit evidence about the confirmed UPE accounts. Anything else suggests bad faith. MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TBF, the OP did say explicitly that "The moderator who rejected it was someone who was asking for money", which seems to me like a direct accusation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was a direct accusation. My point is that nothing suggests there is evidence backing this accusation, not even off-wiki impersonation, because the UPE this user is in contact with are using other accounts that are not mentioned here. So my claim is that this accusation was not made in good faith or not with enough transparency. MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question about "we" wasn't querying your COI, which I could see duly disclosed on your user page, but rather whether there is more than one user accessing that user account? Wikipedia accounts are for use by a single individual only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No the account is only held by myself :)
Please can you advise on next steps, is there somewhere i need to submit the evidence or something i can do in the meantime? EditCloud123 (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 – the next steps are:
  1. Email your evidence of payment demands to the investigations team, as already instructed. It is in everyone's interests, not least @Timtrent's, that this issue is looked into without delay.
  2. Respond to the query on your talk page, which asks you not to edit until you have acknowledged and answered it.
  3. Regarding editing the draft, as 331dot correctly points out you are able to do this, but for now you are unable to resubmit. (We can cross that bridge when we get to it.)
-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 Please submit your evidence at your earliest opportunity. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EditCloud123 Did you personally create and own the copyright to the company logo, and do you really want to make it available to anyone to use for any purpose with attribution? 331dot (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: Obviously not, and this would require a permission ticket. It should be deleted. MarioGom (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EditCloud123 That is an extraordinary charge you are making against me. I refute it totally. Please your send evidence to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org as detailed in WP:SCAM.
Never pay money to anybody offering to do anything for you on Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an admin who handles a lot of paid editing cases: whoever is claiming to be Timtrent is almost certainly a scammer and not actually Timtrent. We've seen a major uptick in cases of this sort of impersonation lately, primarily targeting Wikipedians who use real (or real-sounding) names as their usernames. Unless there is extremely convincing evidence submitted by the accuser here, I see no reason to hold Timtrent under any sort of suspicion. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability Impersonation is part of the lot of a reviewer. This is the first time that I know of that it has happened to me, and I suppose that I should wear the badge with pride. However, being accused in public forum is not something I am enjoying.
I have now done all that I am able to do in order to show my bona fides, and put my trust in the underlying processes to sort this nastiness out. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reminded of the heavily aggressive comments by User talk:Ayumu Chizue, editor of Draft:Connex One, blocked, and investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbasshaikh124. There is a huge sock farm at this investigation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
False accusations of corruption have been made against a reviewer. Is anyone looking into taking action for the false allegations? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's actionable. There's the good faith interpretation that the editor just got confused about who's who. Or the more likely explanation that they decided to go after the editor who pushed back against their spam, rather than against the supposed scammer. Either way, I think EditCloud123 should have been blocked since the beginning as a spammer. They used their own account to spam, and also hired others to amplify that spam. We should not allow a spammer to drag us into more complex discussions that just distract us from the fact that there's no place on this project for spammers. MarioGom (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom I am content, as the falsely accused party, that this rests here. I doubt EditCloud123 is more than a disposable account. A sense of "vengeance" suggest to me that an admin viewing this might block them, but reality suggests that they might appear again and lead us to more UPE accounts.
Thank you Robert McClenon for following this up, IT was unpleasant, then aggravating, and is now history, I think. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Promnewyork

I am requesting assistance because of the reasons given for rejecting my article... "that it is a research essay Promnewyork (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Promnewyork: what assistance do you need? FWIW, I fully concur that this does look, both in terms of structure and content, very much like an essay, dissertation, or scientific paper of some sort, rather than an encyclopaedia article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Oh, and it has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the work to present it as encyclopedia paper and re-summit for review and publication. Cheers! Promnewyork (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Promnewyork: with respect, you haven't; you may have edited the draft, but you haven't fundamentally changed the nature of it.
As this has been rejected, you cannot resubmit it; your only way forward is to appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer, but this would be rather pointless at this time, as the rejection reason still stands. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly NOT acceptable as an encyclopaedia article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the acceptable format for encyclopedia article pls Promnewyork (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Promnewyork: you can find advice and instructions for article creation at WP:YFA.
You can also see examples of articles rated as 'good' eg. at Wikipedia:Good articles/Language and literature. It's often useful to read some articles before attempting to write one, so you know roughly what you need to aim for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Hirwa94

I am writing this message to express my disappointment over Wikipedia approval process. Most editors have negative image on Africa and considers everything from there as inferior. This is deeply unfair as our nations also want to be connected.

The article African Centre of Excellence in Data Science is all about a non profit, public university. Why would you mark it as advertising or unreliable references? Hirwa94 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirwa94: it's interesting that straight off the bat you go for some anti-African sentiment and assert that "Most editors have negative image on Africa " etc. – is it not possible that this draft was declined simply because it doesn't meet the relevant standards? In any case, this has been resubmitted and is awaiting review; what, therefore, is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been reviewed and reviewed to the point one editor told me that it is okay. As for Geographical biases, it exists. You guys put your kindergartens on Wikipedia but you can't stand our universities being on it. And then you call yourselves GLOBAL, DEMOCRATIC. The deserved name is HYPOCRITES.
Anyway, the platform is yours. I did my part and if it is not enough, that's it. Hirwa94 (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hirwa94 Sorry you have had a negative experience with the AfC process. As one of the reviewers who declined the article, I want you to understand my reasons for it: at the time of your submission nearly every source was WP:PRIMARY , which meant the centre did not pass the WP:NSCHOOL criteria. This has nothing to do with any kind of geographic bias. I agree that most of the existing school and kindergarten articles on Wikipedia don't meet that criteria and should be removed- we have millions of articles and it is simply that no one has gotten around to nominating them for deletion yet. We're all volunteers. I will note I regularly decline drafts that do not pass WP:NSCHOOL , which are based all across the globe.
Perhaps a solution is to merge the contents of your draft into the [[University of Rwanda]] main article. Qcne (talk) 18:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have no certainty about the race of any user. Your race or nationality is not relevant. I don't see where someone said that articles about topics in Africa are "inferior". That isn't true, if it was said to you. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Hockima

What needs to be done better ? Hockima (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @Hockima, it has been rejected. Qcne (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:32, 3 October 2023 review of submission by 2A02:CE0:1800:22C9:CD4F:3A91:D444:1112

Requesting kind support to revised my article to be accepted with Wikipedia Policy 2A02:CE0:1800:22C9:CD4F:3A91:D444:1112 (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor, the draft was rejected in August and you should not have re-submitted it. It has now been rejected again. This is the end of the road, find something else to write about. This will not become an article. Qcne (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:50, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Shahin hossain007

why my article submission was declined Shahin hossain007 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cause it was self-promotion. 24.211.70.219 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 3 October 2023 review of submission by Jordandl18

I'm not really familiar with how to get the Wikipedia page approved and I have provided sources for everything but it still gets declined. Jordandl18 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred term is Wikipedia article, not "page" which has a broader meaning. Most of your sources are affiliated with the team- an article about this team should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the team, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You haven't provided sources for everything- the Legacy section is entirely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 3 October 2023 review of submission by 2607:FB91:320:725:B9A8:C6BD:CF57:5185

I have a question if I’m citing the sources correctly. 2607:FB91:320:725:B9A8:C6BD:CF57:5185 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are citing your sources more or less correctly, but you are just not citing good enough sources to have shown that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

02:11, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Wootdee

Hello, I just wanted to query why my article submission has been rejected when I have met the following criteria: 'The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[6] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[7]'. The books are being taught in AT LEAST 10 schools, both private and public and Wikipedia only requires that they be taught in two.

I can see in the editor's rejection that he has discredited the validity of the Echo news paper from my region as a source, but it is basically the last bastion of journalism on the Far North Coast of N.S.W. in Australia.

I realise the article is not of a huge magnitude globally, but it is significant locally. It promotes an awareness for the Nyangbal Aboriginal people and their culture that has largely been wiped out as a result of the British invasion in the Ballina area. I am working hard with the Bundjalung Elders to promote the Nyangbal people's culture and language before it disappears entirely. Wootdee (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wootdee: the draft has been declined (not rejected) due to insufficient referencing which is not enough to establish notability or to support the draft contents. You assert notability on the basis of the being taught at school, but there is no evidence of that, as the claim is unreferenced. (I think we would also need to see some detail of what "being taught" means here: are these books actually being discussed and analysed in some detail, or are they merely on a reading list, or something else?)
I don't think the reviewer "discredited" the Echo, but made the point that local papers obviously have more interest in, and therefore considerably lower publication threshold on, local matters than would a national one. And especially when both references (and in saying that, I am very much discrediting Goodreads as a source) are to the same publication, this doesn't really show that the books have received such attention as would be required for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I should be able to address the first issue with some guidance, I think, if you can advise me on the type of evidence required? I'm an English teacher so I wrote the books to be taught in Stage 3 and 4 of the N.S.W. syllabus. I have orders and tax invoices from the schools, who purchased class sets of 30, or I can contact them for photo evidence or affidavits or something if that would suffice? Any other suggestions? I understand the Goodreads review issue so I can delete those comments entirely as a source. As far as the newspaper source goes, I think my latest book (and maybe this series) is about to be reviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian newspapers, would those reviews be rigorous enough to use? I'll see if I can get some reviews elsewhere to, like the NSW English Teachers' Association, maybe? Do you think that would be okay to use? Any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated. Wootdee (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:23, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Uddhabadhikari

Dear Wikipedia Moderators,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the creation of a Wikipedia page for Mr. Uddhab Adhikari, a notable and influential individual in Nepal. I believe that such a page is essential for authentic documentation and recognition of his contributions in various fields, including beauty pageantry, business, philanthropy, and social impact.

Here are the reasons why I believe Uddhab Adhikari's Wikipedia page is of significant importance:

Notability: Uddhab Adhikari has played a pivotal role in the beauty pageant industry in Nepal. As the owner of Miss Universe Nepal and Miss Grand Nepal, he has provided a platform for Nepalese women to showcase their talents and advocate for important social causes on the international stage. His influence extends beyond entertainment, making him a notable figure in Nepal.

Philanthropy and Social Impact: Uddhab Adhikari's commitment to philanthropy and social impact initiatives deserves recognition. Through his pageants, he has raised awareness of critical issues and empowered young women to become advocates for positive change. His work in these areas is inspirational and aligns with Wikipedia's mission of providing accurate and verifiable information.

Cultural Significance: Uddhab Adhikari's contributions to Nepalese culture and entertainment have left a lasting impact. A Wikipedia page would serve as a valuable resource for those interested in the cultural and entertainment history of Nepal.

Documentation of Achievements: Creating a Wikipedia page for Uddhab Adhikari would allow for the documentation of his achievements and contributions in a neutral and verifiable manner, ensuring that his legacy is preserved for future generations.

Educational Value: Such a page would provide valuable information for researchers, students, and enthusiasts interested in the fields of beauty pageantry, business, philanthropy, and social impact.

I kindly request your consideration of this request to create a Wikipedia page for Uddhab Adhikari. I am prepared to assist in providing verifiable sources and information to ensure that the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines and standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your positive response.

Sincerely, Uddhab Adhikari 

Uddhabadhikari (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uddhabadhikari: you may have misunderstood things, we don't create articles here at the help desk, we advise article creators whose drafts are undergoing the AfC review process. Your draft has been deleted as promotional, therefore there isn't much we can help you with at this stage. If you wish to rewrite your draft, you may do so, but please make sure to do it in a factual and neutral manner, and only summarise what reliable and independent sources have previously published about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:10, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Anjakrend

The german wikipedia got accepted about a month ago (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Krendlinger) with the same criteria checked for "significant coverage" and the Name "E. Krendlinger" appears in the article about sugarcane wax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugarcane_wax) aswell. I just translated the article and added links of proof etc. Do the two points mentioned above help with the significants maybe? Anjakrend (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anjakrend: sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking, could you rephrase please?
I will just mention, though, that having been accepted into the German Wikipedia means nothing in what comes to being accepted into the English-language one, as each language version is entirely separate with their own requirements and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah alright, thank you. That basicly answered my question. :) Anjakrend (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 4 October 2023 review of submission by 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73

Hi! I'm not sure why my draft page for Solita (company) was declined due to inadequate sources, could you please help? In my opinion the sources qualify to your criteria, as in the article, we have used multiple different Finnish independent news media articles. The articles in the sources have been written in Finnish as Solita is a Finnish company, but all of the sources excluding Solita's web page (that has not been used that much) are in-depth articles about the company, reliable, secondary and independent. What should I do? 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 06:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please highlight three strongest sources in terms of being independent and reliable, and providing significant coverage of this company. Please note that interviews or where someone from the company is commenting on things, routine business reporting (appointments, M&A, financial results, opening of new locations or markets, etc.), and any sort of sponsored content or anything based on press/promo materials does not count. We can then take a look at those three sources; that will be far easier than evaluating 46 (!), which is definitely in the WP:REFBOMB territory.
This draft has various other issues as well, but let's first establish whether it is notable or not. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the quick help! Just to add, I'm not being paid of writing the page, there is already a Finnish page for Solita, and thought it would be important to have also an English one as Solita has grown into a multinational enterprise and helped, for example, by developing an app that was used by 90% of Finns during the COVID pandemic (saw the comment in the draft). I have made the English page according the Finnish one.
Also saw just now, that the editor would like to have the news article headlines to the sources, would that help?
The three strongest sources would perhaps be
1. Tivi: https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/it-firma-kovassa-kasvussa-henkilosto-26-liikevaihto-35-/9087ed4b-48fa-3ee9-82f1-7e1a785dff12 (headline translated: IT company growing fast - staff +26%, turnover +35%). The article highlights Solita's importance in the Finnish market going through its' business in numbers, without any interviews etc. It also shortly reports the history of the company's numbers.
2. Tivi: https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/solita-kierratti-johtajiaan-ja-pani-rakenteensa-uusiksi/6fb39b4b-a587-439d-a8b6-366e24c05bbd (headline translated: Solita shuffles its leadership and restructures its business). The article reports about the leadership of the company as well as the business areas on which Solita developed its operations.
3. There is also a few articles about the acquisitions that Solita has made (I've used them to report Solita's history), most important ones are the ones reporting about Solita expanding its business abroad, for example Kauppalehti's article: https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/solita-ostaa-ruotsalaisen-it-talon-ja-laajenee-samalla-tanskaan-ja-belgiaan/ddbe8626-984e-41d2-bafe-2fd3c790fdc3 (headline translated: Solita buys Swedish IT house and expands into Denmark and Belgium).
No interviews in these articles. Some of the articles have interviews with Solita's leadership, but there is no commercial cooperation marked in the articles (Finnish media always tells, if the article has been written as an ad), so I would rely on the thought, that the interviews have been made in order to get more info about the company.
Also, just to clarify: Tivi is a Finnish, independent technology media, which has been written a lot about Solita as Solita's business area is tech. 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks; I'll have a look at those sources, just need to walk our pooch first. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) Just tell if there is some issues with the articles, as they may be behind the paywall 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are exactly the sort of routine business reporting I mentioned: the KL article even says it's based on the company's press release, and I'm pretty sure the two Tivi articles also come from the company one way or another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I also just check something? You said you are not being paid to write this. Do you mean that you do not work for this company, or have any such relationship with it? Or only that you aren't being expressly paid to write this English-language article specifically? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the Finnish Wikipedia is a separate project from the English Wikipedia, with its own editors and policies, and that what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so although the article is written by the independent choice of the media outlet, I can't use it as a source at all?
I don't work for Solita, or have any other connection to it except that I'm interested in Finnish tech companies and has been following it from the news. Thought it would be a nice touch if Solita would have also an English page since, as I also said before, it is a really nice example of a Finnish tech company that has been able to expand it business (we don't have it a lot here in Finland) :) 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checked also the Tivi articles, there are no mentions of them relying the info on Solita's press release, although it is natural, that they somehow get the info from the company as they are reporting about its numbers, leaders etc.
What kind of sources would you recommend to use then? When writing about a company, the news articles are best that I got, if Solita's web page can't be used that much (which I totally understand). I thought that reliable, independent Finnish media outlets would fit to be used as sources. :) 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that don't merely discuss the activities of the company- they must go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company, not what the company sees as signficant about itself. If you only have sources that discuss the activities of the company, it would not merit an English Wikipedia article, even if it merits a Finnish Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reliable and independent media is what we're looking for. But there's more to it: the media should be writing or broadcasting about the subject of their own volition, not just filling their pages by regurgitating press releases or other materials put out by the company's marketing or comms team. The basic WP:GNG notability standard already requires this, but as WP:ORGCRIT makes clear, in what comes to articles on businesses, the bar is higher still.
This is probably as good a time as any to raise some of the other issues with this draft. I have a feeling that the fi.wiki original has been largely written by editors associated with the business. In doing so, they've presumably written what they or their bosses wanted to write, and then found some sources that may or may not fully support what they've written. That is how you end up with an article that has more marketing blurb and general fluff than actual encyclopaedic content, and that's also why it is then difficult to identify sources that actually establish notability. This is known as WP:BACKWARD editing. What you should do instead is find 3-5 solid sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria, and simply summarise what they have said, citing the sources as you go. That is how you end up with an acceptable article and the necessary referencing.
None of this is a criticism against you, as you haven't (presumably) written the original, only translated it, but by so doing you've become a victim of someone else's mistake (or at least what is considered a mistake here on en.wiki, even if it isn't on fi.wiki). What needs to be done now is, rather than translating the fi.wiki article per se, a new article should be written on this subject in English, following the process I've outlined here. That would have a much better chance of being accepted. Which is probably not at all what you wanted to hear. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidelines! I'll check if I can find sources that you described and edit the draft! Have a great day! 2001:14BA:A0A0:1D00:CCD4:65D2:62A2:1E73 (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:24, 4 October 2023 review of submission by AshlyMel

Please help to improve the article AshlyMel (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no. you improve it. ltbdl (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AshlyMel: just to unpack ltbdl's crisp reply, that's not the way the system works. We are not here to co-create/-edit articles, we're here to advise on the creation especially in what comes to getting the draft through the AfC review process. You submitted the draft, and it was declined. It is now your job to address the reasons for that decline, and then resubmit the improved draft, at which point a reviewer will again take a look at it and determine whether it can be accepted or not. This is true of any editor submitting drafts for review, and none more so than an editor who is actually paid to write their draft (unlike us here at the help desk who are all unpaid volunteers). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:46, 4 October 2023 review of submission by 80.155.22.6

I am part of the communications and PR Department of Neumann Gruppe GmbH and my target is to translate the German Wikipedia article about the group in English. I do not understand why you don´t accept the article and why our own website isn´t a valid source since there almost does not exist other sources and the German article is accepted since years. 80.155.22.6 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the German Wikipedia has accepted an article on this subject is irrelevant. Each language version is a completely separate project. This is the English-language Wikipedia, and we have our own policies and requirements, which you need to comply with for your draft to be accepted here.
Your company website is a valid source for verifying completely non-contentious facts (eg. location of your HQ, the names of your senior management team, etc.), but it contributes nothing towards notability, which is the reason why this draft was first declined and then rejected. We need to see what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about the business, and if, as you say, such sources do not exist, then the subject is by definition not notable enough for inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the English version of the German Wikipedia. This is the completely independent English Wikipedia, with its own policies and guidelines. Acceptable English language Wikipedia articles about businesses are based on summarizing references to significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the business. I recommend that you open an account and immediately comply with WP:PAID. Doing so would be a sign of good faith, and would facilitate collaboration with English Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I used all other sources existing about facts that are non contentious. For other facts I used newsletter or press articles especially talking about the critics. Is there anything I could do? 80.155.22.6 (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I used all other sources existing about facts that are non contentious. For other facts I used newsletter or press articles especially talking about the critics. Is there anything I could do? 80.155.22.6 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:20, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Origagari

Hi again,

Seyidullah Nebati is a known and loved businessman. It is quite normal for their information to be on Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with advertising or promotion. I truly and wholeheartedly convey to you that this article is not for advertising or promotional purposes. Can you help get it published?

Good Work. Origagari (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@origagari:
this is 100% promotional.
here's your lead paragraph:

Since 2000, he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of B&G Store, which has made its name known to the masses in the field of modern children's clothing and is the address of quality in the children's clothing sector today.

ltbdl (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Origagari What is your connection with him- which you must have since you took a picture of him? 331dot (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Origagari you completely ignored our strict requirements to use in-line citations? I declined the draft three times because you failed to do this. Qcne (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Tod888

I have recently written an article about this company, but it was declined due to lack of sources and not being encyclopedic. I have done research on Google and used every source there was regarding the company and also mentioned their 0% commission policy, if this was the reason that it got declined I removed that part and re-submitted the article, also I checked similar articles on wikipedia, I couldn't spot any difference regarding the tone of articles, if there is anything else need to be done, I'll be happy to know, cause I also want to add couple more articles from the food industry. many thanks Tod888 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tod888: I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, exactly, but this draft was declined as there is no evidence whatsoever that the subject is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can we make it notable? if you check on google I believe there are enough sources regarding the company, and also there are no claims about anything regarding the company, the article only contains information about the company and that's all, here is the additional info about the company: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC705051 Tod888 (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 your usage of the word "We" suggests to me you are employed by Mealzo. You have been asked twice on your User Talk page to make a paid editing disclosure. You must do this immediately. Failure to do so will result in your account being blocked. See WP:PAID.
Note, companies house pages do nothing to establish notability. Qcne (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by WE I mean YOU & I Tod888 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 you still have not confirmed if you are employed by the company or not. Please do this now. Qcne (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not employed by this company, I used to work in food industry for many years Tod888 (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming. Qcne (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't 'make' a subject notable; notability either is there, in which case this needs to be demonstrated through sourcing; or it isn't, in which case no amount of editing can magic it out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Tod888. Of your three sources, two were sponsored by the company and one is probably sponsored. That means there isn't enough to establish notability under WP:NORG. Qcne (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you recommend?
as I said I tried to check other related articles to make sure I'm not violating any rules & etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foodhub
like what is the difference with this article? I'm asking just to know what needs to be done to make it valid Tod888 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: drafts are assessed with reference to the relevant guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles that may exist out there (possibly with problems of their own). See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comparison is to know what is the issue with the article, if my article is almost same with the an already verified article, then it must have a reason, either they paid you to verify it or it's written by someone with authority to publish it by themselves. Tod888 (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have millions of articles, many are unfortunately of poor quality and should have been deleted years ago. But we are volunteers, with limited amount of time to check every single article. Wikipedia content guidelines have also gotten tighter over the years, so what might have been acceptable in 2008 is no longer acceptable in 2023.
If you do want to compare to an existing article, choose an article from WP:GOOD.
Please answer if you are employed by Mealzo or not. Qcne (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not employed by this company, I used to work in food industry for many years
so long story's short if an article has more text it's considered as good article?
I can somehow agree with that, but when talk about a company, I don't think it's possible to write a large article about it, as It's not a person.
but if we get back to know the whole purpose of wikipedia, it's about a free information about stuff right? what is wrong to have an article about an information for a company? as there are many companies I know is not on wikipedia, like Order YOYO, What the fork & etc... I don't know why? Tod888 (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a business directory nor an indiscriminate collection of all the information in the world. Please have a read of WP:NOT. Articles about companies should only exist if there is evidence the company passes the WP:NORG criteria. So far, your sources in your draft do not prove how the company passes that criteria. It's as simple as that. Qcne (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: the Foodhub article has much better sources than your draft; it demonstrates notability, whereas yours does not. That is the difference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with respect, that's your opinion, check the sources:
https://techround.co.uk/news/touch2success-announces-big-foodie-acquisition-in-multi-million-pound-deal/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/shopping-deals/heres-how-free-takeaway-meal-22520910
https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/how-two-school-friends-stoke-4553363
as both of these companies are part of the food industry, that's the only place you can find about them, NEWS, don't expect to find a an article on other sources? like where you want to find a source? president Biden's speech?
I know we are not going anywhere with talking here, but this kind of treatment is very suspicious in my opinion, your point is not valid Tod888 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NORG guideline genuinely explains what sources must exist to show if a company is "notable" by our standards. If the only sources you can find for Mealzo are sponsored, primary, or trivial mentions then there is not enough out there to warrant an article about this business. Perhaps there will be in the future if it expands and has more stuff written about it, but for now there is no evidence of notability.
The FoodHub article sources all contain significant coverage which are not sponsored by the company itself, unlike your two sources which were. I don't actually think the sources are great on the FoodHub article either- they're borderline - as some are PR statements or interviews with thee founders. But the key thing is that they weren't directly sponsored by the company. Two of your three sources are literally adverts masquerading as articles. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I didn't notice the sponsored content on articles, I'll remove the sponsored links from the article and I'll add new information if there was any, appreciate your help Tod888 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888: you've now accused me twice, first of accepting payments, and now saying there is something "very suspicious" about my behaviour. Present your evidence, or withdraw the accusations, please. And either way, let that be the end of this line of personal attacks.
If you don't think the Foodhub article's sources demonstrate notability, feel free to propose that it is deleted. After all, that is no more, no less than what would happen to your draft if it were to be accepted in its current state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody accused you for anything, I only raised my concern about the absence of clarity on your explanation, I won't propose to delete the article of Foodhub as I'm against censoring the so called startup companies.
Your judgement to not have these companies on wikipedia is questionable, and defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia. Tod888 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, you are mistaken. DoubleGrazing is an incredibly experienced reviewer who has a very good grasp on the guidelines that set out notability for topics on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tod888 I have left a warning on your talk page about your issuing of personal attacks. This behaviour must cease.
If you have any evidence to back uo your accusation "either they paid you to verify it" then present it by email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org without delay. The community takes a very jaundiced view of people who make false accusations.
It is in your interest and that of DoubleGrazing that you either present your evidence any once, or that you withdraw your accusation, ideally apologising. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:27, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Ajayksfg

Not approve Ajayksfg (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayksfg are you talking about Draft:Suraj_Kumar_Maurya? You have failed to submit it for review.
But there's no point in submitting it for review, as it would be declined. There is no evidence of notability. Qcne (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Ajayksfg

How much take time for approval Ajayksfg (talk) 11:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajayksfg There are no drafts under your account. If you mean Draft:Suraj_Kumar_Maurya then you have failed to submit it for review. But there's no point in submitting it for review, as it would be declined. There is no evidence of notability. Qcne (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajayksfg: Draft:Suraj Kumar Maurya has not been submitted for review, so it is impossible to say how long this would take - forever? There is not much point in submitting it as it stands, either, as it would only be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:03, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Lndnfr

Hi = I"m trying to edit this draft now - to start to correct citation issues as pointed out by Qcne etc = but I'm not seeing an option to Edit at the top of the window as is listed - please can you advise? Or am I completly missing it - I can see Edit Source only... or Read. Thank you Lndnfr (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"edit source" is what you need to click in order to edit the draft. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Charlie Rosenbaum

Hi, Hope you are doing well. I submitted an article about my biography. But the article was rejected because of the person is not notable. I am not sure how to write the article right way. Please help me write the article. Kindly, Charlie Rosenbaum Charlie Rosenbaum (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie Rosenbaum: can I please just refer you to my earlier reply, above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it for speedy deletion it is full of ridiculous puffery “has tirelessly worked”, “dedication to advocating for fairness and justice”, “Inspired by the wisdom and insights”’ “his remarkable achievements”, “an accomplished engineer”, ”Striving to make a difference in the lives of others”, “distinctive personal touch”, and more and more! Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Left him my usual deletion notice. (The thing read like a campaign brochure.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Doodle inc.

It was rejected Doodle inc. (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Fadinoja

It's a theory i have and will be adding more details over time. Fadinoja (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for posting our personal theories, sorry. When independent reliable sources write about your theories, let us know.
d 331dot (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 4 October 2023 review of submission by Lw4bdi

Draft for new page Draft:Jennie Hudson was declined and clear reasons given. I wanted to reach out for advice on how to improve this for resubmission, if at all possible. When preparing this, I was referring to an existing Wikipedia page as a guide (a page of another academic who works with this person) - this page had only two sources and they were both affiliated with the subject directly. Can anyone shed light as to why a page like that was approved whereas the draft I submitted with a range of many sources is still insufficient? I understand I need more third-party sources, but I had gone out of my way to obtain what I thought were examples of this (mentions on government websites and other organisations, rather than just her current and previous employer). I have got a news article I could cite, but it's not anything in-depth as the feedback suggests I should find. Most news articles that refer to this person are just brief quotes and mentions about her role. I may be able to find something more in-depth to resubmit, but in any case, I am curious to understand where the line is drawn given that I was being guided by existing approved pages. Lw4bdi (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lw4bdi I fixed your link in the header for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:"). We don't need the whole url as well.
Please see other stuff exists. That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. The submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and it's not required of everyone. 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, which with millions of articles can be challenging. If you would like to help us, you can identify other inappropriate articles you have seen for possible action. We need the help.
The article you used as a model was frankly a poor choice if it only has two sources that are affiliated with the subject.
If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Thanks so much for clarifying. I will have a look at the good ones and see if there is anything to be done. Lw4bdi (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

04:09, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 197.157.18.102

Am stuck here 197.157.18.102 (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 70.52.166.160

I met Matti Charlton only briefly at a Town Hall they were attending and speaking at and I was moved by their struggle and creative work, so I approached them afterwards and asked if I could write a wikipedia entry about them since I use wikipedia religiously. They said that was fine, It's my first article but can you please check if there's anything more I need to do to get it accepted? I have tried to follow all the requirements but have been having some trouble. 70.52.166.160 (talk) 06:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review. We don't provide on-demand pre-reviews here at the help desk, so you will have to wait until a reviewer picks up and assesses the draft. If you have a specific question you wish to ask, you may do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:14, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Uniting Arts

Hello!

I have created a page for a Romanian singer. Although I have added external sources written by various people and the artist has million of views all together on different youtube and facebook accounts owned by various people, the submission team declined it.

I have removed the youtube and facebook links most watched because I understood that Wikipedia doesn't accept them. How can I prove that this singer is worth having a wiki page?

Thank you Uniting Arts (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uniting Arts. You need to read WP:NSINGER and prove to us that she meets those criteria set out in that guideline. Qcne (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 105.112.109.175

How can i successfully sumit my draft without being declined 105.112.109.175 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced. Any draft about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources say about this topic. If you have no such sources, the topic does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:51, 5 October 2023 review of submission by PreethaK2023

I've made the advised changes, kindly need help reviewing the page. PreethaK2023 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. Please be patient, there is a large number of drafts awaiting review. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:09:07, 5 October 2023 review of draft by Tinfoilhat8001


I created a page as part of an established wikipedia project (U.S. Supreme Court Cases), and I am having trouble adding the tag for the WikiProject in order to perhaps expedite review Tinfoilhat8001 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? I'm not sure the tags really speed it up much. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. 331dot (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Golf-ulk

It seems to me, that the crucial question is whether Louis Sucheston deserves an article in Wikipedia. His best known result is the "Prophet inequality". This has been called "famous" and "classical", and, in fact, there is by now an enormous number of publications, which mention the prophet inequaliy even in the title. There are now connections to many different subjects , and various applications. The topic has been taught not only in probabiliy courses but also in computer science. The other work of Louis Sucheston is interesting but less spectacular. He has been honored by the Humboldt prize, and he solved some problems mentioned in the literature, but no problems of central significance. My impression is, that in the German Wikipedia, the standards are less strict, but he is an American mathematician. One of his results will last forever, but is this sufficient? 

Golf-ulk (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Golf-ulk. Firstly, yes, the German and English Wikipedias are two different projects with different policies and guidelines. Just because there is an article about him on de. does not mean there can automatically be one on en.
The problems with your draft are two-fold:
1) It has improper in-line citations. Biographies should have proper in-line citations for each statement. Currently you just have plain-text citation numbers, instead of dynamic references with an automatically-generated reference list. I would recommend turning on the Visual Editor and following the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE which may be easier for you to follow.
2) Some of your sources are invalid: you can't use geni.com as it is generally an unreliable source. You can't source Wikipedia articles, but you can wikilink them instead.
Louis may indeed pass WP:NACADEMIC but, you need to fix the above issues first.
Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:56, 5 October 2023 review of submission by PixelThePro

My page about Moroccan meat cigars has been drafted because of “no mentions”. Not to be rude but it’s literally just 2-3 paragraphs of info and a picture WHICH I REFERENCED. I don’t understand why it needs more references! I did all I could, all the info is there. and yet I need more ? it’s 2 paragraphs of text! please help!! PixelThePro (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PixelThePro, your second source is to Reddit which is an improper source as it is WP:USERGENERATED. Please remove it. Your other two sources just look to be recipe blogs? They aren't great for establishing "notability" either. Are there any sources that discuss this dish from reputable, reliable places? Academic journals, news articles, published books, etc. Qcne (talk) 20:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m so sorry, I searched everywhere I still don’t know when the dish was created, also the references are from where I got the text and also the pics PixelThePro (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no more sources to be found, then I am afraid this dish does not quality for a Wikipedia article at this time. Sorry. It does look delicious though.
Please also do not steal images you have no rights to and use them on Wikipedia. That is against our Terms of Service. We have very strict rules regarding images: WP:IMAGEPOL. Qcne (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
im sorry i just dont know the copyright stuff and it doesnt even say it on the websites 😔
I’ll just delete the page, im done with editing and creating here PixelThePro (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Uortdr

Master SEO with our easy-to-understand guide. Gain the edge in digital marketing by learning SEO basics, techniques & strategies in a simple way. Uortdr (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:14, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Uortdr

Master SEO with our easy-to-understand guide. Gain the edge in digital marketing by learning SEO basics, techniques & strategies in a simple way. Uortdr (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reported to ARV as clearly just here to promote. Qcne (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 5 October 2023 review of submission by RajeshKumarRajan7492

Can you specify what is the real problem? RajeshKumarRajan7492 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Oequihua

Hello! I need help making this draft "reliable", it was declined as it did not have reliable sources, but I am working with the subject of this article (Dr. Goh). Oequihua (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Oequihua. Firstly, are you getting paid by Dr Goh to write this article? If so you must immediately make a paid editing disclosure by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of Wikimedia Foundation Terms and Conditions.
Thank you for making a conflict of interest disclosure already.
The problem with your draft is that it relies on a single source, which is just a paper that Dr Goh has written. This is not enough sources to establish if Dr Goh meets our WP:NACADEMIC people, or even our WP:NBASIC criteria. Articles must have have sources that show the subject has been covered in multiple published independent and reliable sources.
Let us know if you have specific questions. Qcne (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been deleted by Whpq as a copyright violation of [1]. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 22:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:51, 5 October 2023 review of submission by 2020coolguy2

I don't know why my draft got declined and I need help getting it off of drafts and onto the website. 2020coolguy2 (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@2020coolguy2 it has been rejected and won't be considered further. Your draft was incoherent and not suitable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is it the topic or the writing 2020coolguy2 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both. Please carefully read WP:YFA. Qcne (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 5 October 2023 review of submission by Lily and me

Please tell me why my submission was rejected. Than k you Lily and me (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lily and me Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, that's what social media is for. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think it's me? I know him. He deserves the mention. He's notable. He's the CEO of Newsweek. Doesn't that qualify? If not, why not? Thank you. Lily and me (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You tripped some self-promotion filters, but if you say you aren't him, okay. However, you do have a conflict of interest to disclose.
You draft was deleted as blatant promotion; it was poorly sourced and used promotional language like "visionary", "digital powerhouse". Articles must be written very dryly, in a neutral point of view. If sources describe him as a "visionary", those need to be cited. Please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. Everything in my submission is completely straight-forward, factual and with footnotes. What's a conflict of interest in that context? As I said, I know him, and I believe he's worthy of inclusion, purely on merit. He's the CEO of Newsweek. full stop. Please post it. Thank you! Lily and me (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

07:02, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 105.113.68.134

Hi, can I get a list of acceptable submissions references? 105.113.68.134 (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure quite what you mean. If you go to WP:YFA, you should find pretty much everything you need there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I fixed the link to your(now deleted) draft, it was lacking the "Draft:"); the bigger problem you have is that the draft was deleted as blatant promotion. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view, summarizing what independent reliable sorces choose on their own to say about a person, showing how they are notable as Wikipedia defines it.
There is no list of acceptable references, but a list of commonly discussed sources may be found at WP:RSP; this should give you an idea of what makes a source acceptable(and not). 331dot (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Kueth nyanuor

dear Editors kindly review my recent edition of the article on my Sandbox and please looking forward to Advises. Kueth nyanuor (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kueth nyanuor your draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It's completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Giftntreat4u

Why Showing Spam. Giftntreat4u (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:52, 6 October 2023 review of submission by ShearwaterNY

My first article was rejected. Is it redeemable or should I give up? I suspect that maybe my sources are not solid enough to get it over the line, but if it's possible to amend it and get it approved I'd very much like to try!

Thanks! ShearwaterNY (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ShearwaterNY I fixed your post so the link is properly displayed. We don't need the url.
If you are associated with this company, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I have no association with the company. I was under the impression that the company would meet the notable company threshold on the basis of the Fast Company awards and the accompanying articles. Fast Company is not listed among the unreliable sources. There is also an AdWeek article, although I'm less confident of that being a considered a reliable source. ShearwaterNY (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Curious curious7

I was applying my article about FS Group multiple times and all of them were rejected due to "marketing" reasons. The frustration of multiple rejections is compounded by the fact that the review process has dragged on for nearly one month. With every passing day, my enthusiasm for using Wikipedia continues to wane.I need to re-consider it urgently and I require detailed explanation what exact text didn't pass your filters in the previous version. The last one I tried to make as much neutral as possible. Thank you. Curious curious7 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curious curious7: I haven't looked at the sources yet to see if they establish notability, but I've scanned through the text and I was left with the distinct impression that this is a rather ROTM company that does some stuff and collaborates with others and services some clients. Can you tell me why an article on this business should be included in a global encyclopaedia? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers, doing what they can when they can. As stated on the draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,550 pending submissions waiting for review."
Do you have a connection to FS Group? 331dot (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 41.13.104.85

i was trying to add some information about Agnes Pareyio 41.13.104.85 (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you title the draft Draft:Bishop Thembani Mukoki??? Theroadislong (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Flagship1537

Hello. I drafted this article two months ago. An editor refused to allow it to be published as it used a blog on Irish aviation for some references. However, I have sources other local printed newspaper references to improve the article. These are not available online however, but I am looking to get permission to upload scans of these to Wikimedia, and link them from there. But all of the other current references I have used in the drat are linked to credible sources or civil record documentation. How can I move this on so this article (my first) can be published. Thank you for your advice. Flagship1537 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flagship1537: you shouldn't be uploading scans of anything, as a) there is a risk of copyright violation, and b) we do not need to see scans of offline publications, you simply cite them as described in WP:OFFLINE.
This draft has been resubmitted and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up, which could take days, weeks or even months; please be patient. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rathorenareshrathore

when can I submit draft of Adel Rahman. Rathorenareshrathore (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathorenareshrathore: given the fact that this draft was rejected, and given the comments about why, I'd say only when something has fundamentally changed and there is a reasonable prospect of the subject being genuinely notable. (And then you need to make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected this latest draft.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rafiul Officail

Sir This is The Original Article Of RAFIUL ISLAM SAGOR Rafiul Officail 16:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafiul Officail: a) that's not a question; b) this draft has been rejected; and c) what is your relationship with the subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 6 October 2023 review of submission by TheShubh77

Hi,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted a Wikipedia draft for "ZongMu Technology," and I received notification of its rejection. I understand and appreciate the rigorous standards and guidelines that Wikipedia upholds to maintain the quality and accuracy of its content. However, I believe that the ZongMu Technology article has valuable information to offer and should be included on Wikipedia.

I would like to request a reconsideration of my draft for inclusion on Wikipedia. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and am willing to make any necessary changes to ensure the article meets the community's standards. Furthermore, I plan to expand the article by adding more comprehensive and well-referenced information to make it a valuable resource for Wikipedia users.

ZongMu Technology is a significant entity in its field, and I believe that having an article about it on Wikipedia would be beneficial to the community. It can serve as a reliable source of information for those seeking to learn more about the company's history, products, innovations, and contributions to the industry.

I kindly request that you reconsider the ZongMu Technology draft for inclusion on Wikipedia. I am committed to collaborating with the Wikipedia community to ensure that the article meets all necessary criteria and contributes positively to the platform's content.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to work together to make this article a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Shubham Bhamare TheShubh77 (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheShubh77: this draft was not rejected, only declined; that means that you can resubmit it for "reconsideration", once you have addressed the reason(s) for declining. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I resubmitted the draft after doing necessary changes. TheShubh77 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Rafiul Officail

Sorry Sir We Have Mistake Rafiul Officail 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafiul Officail: that's still not a question; did you have one in mind you would like to ask? And please don't start a new thread each time, you can just reply to your earlier thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:42, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Ahmed.bn.hossain

Help on a draft Please help me understand the reason for the rejection of the draft that you edited.

I've added sources from reliable sites and I don't know the reason for the rejection. Ahmed.bn.hossain (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean  Courtesy link: Draft:Dheyaa al-din saad, then that has not been rejected, only declined. And it was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice – have you read them? In any case, this has been resubmitted and is awaiting a new review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmed.bn.hossain I have now rejected the draft, it will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 2600:4041:5CB4:D700:542A:746B:730F:80E

Hi there, a few editors have made changes and weighed in on the draft which I really appreciate. My question is if the copyright violations still exist? and for which text? If I'm interpreting the edits correctly, I believe the submission was cleaned of the noted copyright violation.

I would also love more clarity on making the draft less 'singing own praises' per Utopes editor comment. The mission statement is a legal requirement of nonprofits, and I completely understand this organization's mission seems very lofty, but I can't change it since it is what it is. I'm happy to leave it off of the page per the editor's removal but wanted as much clarity as possible and to share that is why it was included in the first place! 2600:4041:5CB4:D700:542A:746B:730F:80E (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mission statements are of no interest whatsoever. Theroadislong (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mission statement are wholly unencyclopedic, as they are written by the organization to describe itself, and can be changed at any time. Nonprofits are treated no difficulty than for profits by Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 6 October 2023 review of submission by 173.66.208.221

My draft has been rejected multiple times now because of the sources used. How am I supposed to find in-depth sources when the technology that is being used is relatively new? I have been following instructions and reviewing other sites tackling similar issues around cleaner energy production and distribution and I'm seeing links to PDF articles that have been archived. Do I need to go back and find unpublished sources? 173.66.208.221 (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to find sources is a strong indication that it is WP:TOOSOON for us to have an article at this time. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means it may be resubmitted- but in this case, if there are not yet sources available to summarize, the topic would not yet merit an article. That doesn't mean forever, just not now. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:44, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Shout4Serenity

The article has been declined due to some unreliable sources. I would like to know which sources they are so I can make improvements to the draft Shout4Serenity (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 6 October 2023 review of submission by Sandeepgahlot

I really want this WikiProject published and I want to know what I need to do to correct the errors I made from the last review which says that my submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Sandeepgahlot (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeepgahlot What is your connection with the doctor? (since you took a photo of him)
The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You had no sources with significant coverage of the doctor. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandeepgahlot you didn't bother to read any of the decline notices which explained what was wrong with your draft. After four reviews I rejected it, as you clearly had no interest in writing to our guidelines. The draft will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No improvement to in-line citations, and written in a promotional way.
I just found out that you included this comment in your review. I will make the corrections, Kindly give one more chance Sandeepgahlot (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your connection to this doctor? 331dot (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 7

05:14, 7 October 2023 review of submission by ZeroMag

Congratulations!

I am the author of the draft of the article about Kostyantyn Vitaliyovych Nemichev. On October 5, 2023, user LJF2019 declined the right to publish the draft with the following explanation: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." In previous times, the publication was rejected due to incorrect design of links, but now this problem has been solved. Instead, the reason given by user LJF2019 is subjective and defies logic. After all, in the English Wikipedia there is an article about the special unit "Kraken", so there must also be an article about its commander. In this regard, please reconsider the decision. ZeroMag (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZeroMag: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further.
And just for the record, it absolutely does not follow that simply because there is an article on a unit, there "must also be" an article on the person commanding it. Each topic must be demonstrably notable in its own right, as notability is not inherited, and this topic has not been shown to be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:53, 7 October 2023 review of submission by Janakjk21

I trust this message finds you in good health and high spirits. I am writing to seek assistance regarding an article submission I made on September 27th. I am eager to ascertain if my submission has been successfully received and if it is in the queue for review.

On the mentioned date, I submitted an article and sought assistance for its review and refinement to ensure its adherence to formal and high-quality standards. However, I am uncertain about the status of my submission and whether it has been assigned for review.

Given the urgency and importance of this matter, I kindly request your prompt attention to this inquiry. I am eager to ensure that my article is in the review process, and any guidance or feedback to enhance its quality is highly valued.

Your prompt response regarding the status of my submission will be greatly appreciated Janakjk21 (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Janakjk21: as you can see, it says on top of the draft, "Review waiting, please be patient". So yes, you have submitted it correctly, and it is pending review (not in a 'queue', rather a pool, but still).
What is the "urgency" you mention? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline. Please understand that a review may take days, weeks or even months. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @DoubleGrazing
Thank you for promptly addressing my concerns regarding the review status of my submitted article and providing valuable insights into the review process on Wikipedia.
I appreciate your clarification about the absence of strict deadlines for edits and reviews on Wikipedia, helping me grasp the dynamic nature of the process.
In response to your mention of the ongoing "pool" for article review, I'm intrigued to learn more about its purpose and the potential ways I can contribute or assist. Understanding how I can positively impact the Wikipedia community is of great interest to me, and any guidance you can offer in this regard would be highly valuable.
Your dedication to maintaining Wikipedia's quality and standards is truly commendable. Please feel free to share further details or suggestions on how I can actively participate in this community-driven endeavor.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon. Janakjk21 (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Janakjk21 Are you writing with the aid of an AI bot? 331dot (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 7 October 2023 review of submission by Lalit sharma 11

It is requested to guide me about furnishing the required evidences, certificates or any other details in this Wikipedia page written by me. I am ready to submit all the evidences, certificates and details? Lalit sharma 11 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lalit sharma 11: this draft was deleted as promotional.
If you wish to try again, start at WP:YFA, where you will find everything you need. And please revise WP:PROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:13, 7 October 2023 review of submission by Afzanj

Hi, I try to bring this article up by googling it but for some reason google brings up the talk: page rather than the article. Can someone advise on how we can get the article to pop up rather than the talk: page? Afzanj (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking help with drafts in the Articles for Creation process- in the future you may use the more general Help Desk.
To answer you, new articles must be marked as reviewed by a New Pages Patroller before Google can index them, both of which take time. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 7 October 2023 review of submission by Garoullogistics

but why Garoullogistics (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Garoullogistics: "but why" what? Why was this rejected? For the reason given in the rejection notice, namely that the subject is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media site. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:46, 7 October 2023 review of submission by WNJCA

Entry declined I have written a genuine entry about someone in the public domain and it has been declined. How can I edit with assurance that it will not be declined a 2nd time. WNJCA (talk) 11:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked this at The Teahouse where it has been responded to. Wikipedia and IMDb are not reliable sources and will need to be replaced and content like "JoJo's DNA is rich in fame, with every twist and turn of his family tree being star studded with success." is laughably inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. Theroadislong (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:18, 7 October 2023 review of submission by Yigit.kilicaslan

I am trying to add an article about an academic non-profit journal that high-authority research organizations like Research Papers in Economics acknowledge. But is marked as not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I think this is not true. What can I do next? Yigit.kilicaslan (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yigit.kilicaslan: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. If you have new evidence available which wasn't considered previously, you may try appealing directly to the reviewer who rejected this, but you will need actual evidence, not just saying you disagree with the review (or rather reviews, by three different reviewers). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 7 October 2023 review of submission by Vancouveright

Although this (my first draft Wikipedia article) was reviewed and approved two days ago, when I search for the subject on Google the Wikipedia article is not among the Google results. Why is that? Have I omitted a step in making it a full-fledged article?

(Note that the article does appear when searched for within Wikipedia.) Vancouveright (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vancouveright: new articles are not indexed by the search engines until they have been reviewed by New Page Patrol, or 90 days have passed since publication, whichever comes first. This article has not yet been patrolled. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 7 October 2023 review of submission by TheShubh77

Hi, I received a decline notification for this Wikipedia draft today. I believe I've addressed the reliability issues with the sources and have resubmitted the draft. Hoping for approval this time. TheShubh77 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, hoping for approval this time. TheShubh77 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. No further action is needed from you until it is reviewed. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:18, 7 October 2023 review of submission by LukkuWayanad

I created a page about a valid, famous person from Kerala and why it was declared LukkuWayanad (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LukkuWayanad: it was declined, because there is no evidence that this person is notable by either WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER standards. "Valid" and "famous" are not notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:03, 7 October 2023 review of submission by TheShubh77

Hi, I have submitted a new article draft. Could you please take a look at it? TheShubh77 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheShubh77 Asking on this page for a review is unlikely to lead to a quick review. As noted on your draft, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,435 pending submissions waiting for review"- every one of those 3,435 or so authors would love for their draft to be reviewed next. Please be patient- once you submit a draft, nothing further is required. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheShubh77: just so you know, you don't need to announce your submissions here on the help desk, we will pick them up as and when. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! TheShubh77 (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

10:17, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Officialaishu

My draft is declined because of of the reason “not supported by adequate reliable sources”. Can you please guide me in what ways I can improve this? I feel that I have provided enough external sources to news articles. Thank you! Officialaishu (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and brief mentions do not establish notability. There must be independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her, showing t how she is a notable actress or more broadly a notable person.
There is also much promotional language in the draft(mostly about her "passion"). The draft reads as if it was written by her publicist. If you have an association with her, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Lndnfr

hi I was given feedback on the citing on this draft. But when I go to try to edit it I'm not seeing the button to Edit at top of the window - please advise? Or is it Edit Source ? thank you Lndnfr (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lndnfr: as already advised in an earlier thread, 'edit source' is what you want. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Lndnfr (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lndnfr you could also try turning on the WP:VISUALEDITOR which may be easier. Qcne (talk) 11:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you will try this Lndnfr (talk) 11:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 8 October 2023 review of submission by DominusStella

Request about lack of Citation and rejection of article DominusStella (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DominusStella your article was not rejected, only declined. This means you can re-submit it for review.
Articles about geographic features need to pass WP:NGEO. When you first submitted you had zero sources, and the second decline was when you had a Google Maps source, which isn't permitted.
The draft has better sources now, other than #4 which looks to be a placeholder? You've also included two sources that appear to be offline books, so it will be harder for a reviewer to check them. Any chance of online articles instead? Qcne (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Astroveen

Hi, I am researching various notable people who contributed to Indian Astrology System. I am only curious on what sources are required to prove the notability of sri N V Raghava Chary. His work (Meena2 Stellar Astrology system) is being used by many astrologers for prediction. He revived Nadi Astrology system and was one of the pioneers in early 1930s and 40s to bring out this system. His son Sri N V R A Raja has established research foundation and propagated the astrology system to thousands of budding astrologers. Sri N V Raghava Chary has been mentioned by several astrologers in their work. Please let me know on how can I publish about him on Wikipedia. Astroveen (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Astroveen: given that astrology is pseudoscientific and doesn't come under any of the special notability guidelines, your only option for demonstrating notability is WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage of this person in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. That pretty much rules out any source dealing in astrology. (You should also make sure that the contents are far better supported by citations than is the case now.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:00, 8 October 2023 review of submission by KingTheD

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with the draft? User:Johannes Maximilian keeps declining it and he's being quite unhelpful. KingTheD (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KingTheD: of your 15 citations, 10 are to familysearch.org, which is not considered a reliable source. This has been pointed out in the decline comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you understand. The user generated content on family search are the trees and peoples profiles, not the records. One of those sources is an image of a newspaper, which is stored on family search, what am I supposed to do put it on Dropbox or something? And the other two sources are U.S. Census records again stored on family search. I used the records on family search because all the records on there are free, as opposed to something like ancestry or my heritage. Even Template:Cite United States census links to a family search record. KingTheD (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please look at the citations before you jump to any conclusions KingTheD (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the source you're citing (familysearch.org) actually has content from a reliable source, then you should cite that reliable source, not familysearch.org. My point still stands: you're denigrating the original source by citing it via a non-reliable 'gateway'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the References section. NONE of them cite familysearch.org as a source, NONE KingTheD (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of these cite family search as a source?
  1. "Major John Irvin [Obituary]", Blossburg Advertiser, retrieved 2023-08-30
  2. " "John Irvin", United States census, 1880; Union Township, Tioga, Pennsylvania; page 18, line 2, Family History film 1255198. Retrieved on 2023-09-30..
  3. "John Irvin Obituary". The Canton Independent-Sentinel. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
  4. "John Irvin", United States census, 1860; Union Township, Tioga, Pennsylvania; page 1, line 39, Family History film 805187. Retrieved on 2023-09-30..
  5. Ward, Joseph R.C. History of the One Hundred and Sixth Regiment, Pennsylvania Volunteers, 2d Brigade, 2d Division, 2d Corps, 1861-1865. F. McManus, Jr. & Co. pp. 3, 20, 150, 196, 324, 327, 415, 416.
  6. "John Irvin Candidate for Sheriff". The Wellsboro Gazette Combined with Mansfield Advertiser. 1891-10-14. p. 3.
KingTheD (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be missing the point. Refs 1, 2 and 4 are cited via familysearch.org, regardless of what the ultimate source is. That automatically makes them flag up as non-reliable. Cite the original source instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Template:Cite United States census. If you click on Charles Jacobs it takes you to family search. But my article can't do that?
"Charles Jacobs", United States census, 1900; Orange, Cuyahoga, Ohio; roll T623 1261, page 4A, line 34, enumeration district 22, Family History film 1254075, National Archives film number T9-0075. Retrieved on 2008-09-10. KingTheD (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The example KingTheD (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the U.S. government recommends viewing census records on family search.
https://www.archives.gov/research/census/online-resources
Search Online
Tenth Census of the United States, 1880 (Microfilm Publication T9, Record Group 29)
Federal Census Mortality Schedules, 1850-1885  (Microfilm Publication T655, Record Group 29)
U.S. Federal Census - 1880 Schedules of Defective, Dependent, and Delinquent Classes
1880 Census Records for City of Pittsburgh
KingTheD (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either I don't know how to help you, or you don't want to be helped. Either way, I'm going to bow out now. Someone else will be along soon who can hopefully assist you better. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand anything about government records or genealogy KingTheD (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying KingTheD (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong if you look at https://www.archives.gov/research/census/online-resources you will see that there are 1880 or 1860 records available in the national archive catalog, however if you click on the any of the censuses in the list it recommends family search and ancestry to view census records. As for the notability, do you not think a brevet major who fought in the civil war and was a county sheriff notable? KingTheD (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong do you think I have enough sources without the census records? If so I can try to find another copy of the obituary KingTheD (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's even mentioned in a book. KingTheD (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Would it be better if I linked the record through a paid service like ancestry.com? KingTheD (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ANCESTRY. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I removed the census records, is the obituary still a problem? KingTheD (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The obituary is fine, though I'm not seeing what makes Irvin notable? Theroadislong (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was a Brevet Major, he fought in the American civil war and was injured at Gettysburg, him and three of his brothers were in the same unit, which is quite rare, after the war he was elected sheriff of Tioga County, PA; which had a population of over 50,000 people, and he was captured by the confederates and escaped. KingTheD (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong Is that notable enough? KingTheD (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of which are criteria for notability? Theroadislong (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:51, 8 October 2023 review of submission by heartrondo

My draft has been declined for not having reliable sources. Do official websites by the respective companies not count? Should the sources be in English? I'm just lost on how to improve the page when I tried to put as many (reliable) references as I could. heartrondo (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For English Wikipedia the sources should probably be in English. KingTheD (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartrondo: no, sources don't have to be in English, as long as they otherwise meet the required standards of reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting KingTheD (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly help youif you added more information to the citations than just links to websites in Asian langues KingTheD (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, @KingTheD, please don't give bad advice on the helpdesk. The references are formatted fine. Qcne (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry KingTheD (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Heartrondo. Articles about actors are written to the WP:NACTOR criteria. Criteria #1 is if the actor has had significant roles in multiple notable works. Looking through his works, he certainly does seem to be second billing in a lot of productions, but I am not sure if those productions are notable themselves.
As I am unsure about this, I've fallen back to the WP:NBASIC criteria which states people are notable if they've received significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. We have to discount most of your sources which are cast lists, so not independent. The two sources in your lead of the article are to the organisation representing him and one leads to Twitter. Neither can be used to establish the aforementioned notability.
Therefore I think he would fail WP:NBASIC too.
Hope that makes sense, and hopefully explains how you can improve it? Qcne (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the correct user @Heartsrondo Qcne (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks so much! I will try to improve the page. I would argue some of the productions are pretty notable, especially in Japan. Anyhow, I'll see what I can do. Thanks again! Heartsrondo (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think they are notable enough for him to pass #1 of the WP:NACTOR criteria, then I would encourage you to submit it again for review, and perhaps add a comment to the top of the article. The Anglo-centric bias of Wikipedia means there probably isn't many reviewers with an intimate knowledge of Japanese theatre/TV.
However I would suggest finding some better sources to replace the first two: something secondary, independent of him, and reliable. Qcne (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! This has been really helpful, thank you! :] Heartsrondo (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Lj67luke

My page keeps getting rejected. What should I do? Lj67luke (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do. Rejected means it will not be considered any more. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Pelaphus

Hello –

David Spencer here. I did not upload the initial entry on myself, but I am largely its author. I procrastinated for many years about making the entry; in part because of the requirements…though—and I mean this neutrally, not with any sense of entitlement—I had earned one, given my resume, credits, career and colleagues. But with more significant credits to follow (including a book that may in fact see print this week), it finally seemed silly not to make the effort.

I can’t say how thoroughly the entry inspector examined each and every reference, but I think the determination to decline is unfair. There are three principal reasons for this:

(1) Where credits are concerned, even though I could not always link to journalism or reportage, I at least always linked either to data sites that had collected their statistics independent of me, or to the publisher/distributor of the book or recording in question (also uploaded independent of any hands-on input). I contend that this is more than just a mention, but documentary evidence that these things exist as career benchmarks, over and above my personal sayso.

(2) Much reportage that once existed is not readily available on the web—if we mark my primary career as starting in 1984, that’s close to four decades—and *some* (though not all) of what still exists is inaccurate; either for simply misreported or representing opinion rather than fact. (Not incidentally, I only inserted references to reviews when the Wiki entry text itself cited reviews—never in support of straight data).

(3) I think the shows and books I’ve written, as well as the people with whom I’ve worked, all of which can be verified (and I believe have been, on my proposed Wiki page, both in inserted references and Wiki cross-links), create a self-evident context of qualification and legitimacy—especially if looked at cumulatively.

I am happy to make improvements—there are additional references I’m hoping to locate and insert—but the implicit suggestion that the entry needs its documentation assembled from scratch, that nothing linked is valid, or that neutral data documentation must conform with unyielding regidity to a content philosophy, seems restrictive to the ironic point of blocking the facts that make the case.

That said, I do understand the necessity for Wikipedia to hew to a general standard. But the answer isn’t always A or B; sometimes it’s C. Please reconsider…and if you feel the entry may yet be further validated, please work with me toward the use of resources the internet provides in this particular case; as well as reconsidering the evidence inherent in what’s been submitted so far.

Many thanks David Pelaphus (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:49, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Cramso

I don't understand why my submission was declined. It's a piece of local history and a prominent ad-hoc landmark, so available sources were limited- but I stuck to ones with verifiable data. This is my first article, and I really tried to make it up to snuff both in its tone and in its sourcing. Cramso (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, the sources are limited, the topic likely does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was suggested for an article to me by Annie Rauwerda of the Depths of Wikipedia page at one of her live shows. I was able to come up with 8 total references, varying from local news articles to local historical societies' documents to court records. I was under the impression that that was enough documentation- am I wrong? Cramso (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Court records are primary sources and do not establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes). 331dot (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The calendar item page, explaining the case brought forth by the state is not a valid source when discussing why the state brought a case forward? Cramso (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh whoops, misunderstood your comment. I still struggle to understand how a local landmark of a major US city with multiple reliable sources speaking on it and its history (and many more unreliable or derivative) sources is not notable enough. Cramso (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 8 October 2023 review of submission by Originalmichael

Not sure how to make this acceptable for approval. Specific non-generic examples can help? Originalmichael (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That draft is literally one paragraph. KingTheD (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing you can do; after a decline, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


October 9

00:08, 9 October 2023 review of submission by Ellis408

I've spent a lot of time working on this page - and have revised it to conform to Wiki standards - but it's been tagged as not enclyclopedic. I believe the subject is notable for two reasons - her career itself was notable as a long-time executive in the music business - and being a woman executive in the music business was also notable , as described in the article - an industry dominated by men - so much so, that studies have been done about it - which is quoted in the article. She was profiled and interviewed in articles and books as a pioneer woman executive in the music business. I tried to keep the tone neutral - and I'm not sure how to edit it to make it more encyclopedic. Please help. Ellis408 (talk) Ellis408 (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:39, 9 October 2023 review of submission by 2601:3CB:781:6F50:11BC:AE5E:29E5:83F6

I am comparing what I have written for Sarah E. Rollens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sarah_E._Rollens) with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J_Altman and with my own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Berg_(scholar) and wondering why these are "notable" but hers is not. I thought the draft entry met the criteria for notable scholars. Thanks for any help. 2601:3CB:781:6F50:11BC:AE5E:29E5:83F6 (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:14, 9 October 2023 review of submission by PriyankaSharma01

Hi, may i know why my article was rejected? PriyankaSharma01 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1179300640"