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 TheTechnologyGuru (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 16 November 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Sony_CD-i_Intelligent_Discman). 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
June 2025
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


November 9

01:37, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Memories of

I'm not understanding how this draft doesn't show that this music group has received significant coverage. They have been mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, and receieved significant coverage in articles from NPR, Consequence, Paste, and Stereogum. I've seen articles of other groups in the mainspace for years now that don't have as many sources of this nature. Memories of (talk) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and simply not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. 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. This is why each article or draft is considered on its own merits and not in comparison with other articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community.
Interviews do not establish notability, as they are not independent sources, being the band speaking about itself. 331dot (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:57, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 66.41.37.183

Hello, I have drastically changed the article and make sure the references were better. So sorry about that. May we publish? 66.41.37.183 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are not significant coverage of the company that describes how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. An article must do more than document the existence of the company and what it does, it must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Typically, after a rejection, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for this company, that needs to be declared, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. This is easier to do with an account, but even if you don't create an account, you must disclose. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:55, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Benking84

I am unclear how any articles can get posted to Wikipedia, this is a subject that has 30 references, some of these are from the largest news organisations in the country.

The feedback has always been addressed as best I can with my limited understanding, so if there are any other sections that need fixing I am happy to take feedback and implement it. Benking84 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it reads like an advertisement, especially the introduction. See "[t]he founders of Swiss 8 have first-hand experience in managing mental health issues;" this is the kind of thing an advert trying to promote Swiss 8 would say, the phrasing is bad for a wiki article. Also "Swiss 8 aims to create a new approach to mental health care that is proactive," this could be rephrased more like "A stated goal of Swiss 8 is to create a new proactive approach to mental health care" There are many other examples as well. Also I can't comment on whether the subject is even notable enough to get an article. PiGuy3 (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Benking84 I see you declared a COI; if you work for Swiss 8, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't work for them, I did some volunteering a year or so ago as they are a charity. Even if I did though it is an entity that has had multiple media articles in the biggest papers in the country this year, so is of importance to the public.
Is this the issue? The admins assumed that I was being paid to write the article? Benking84 (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:06, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Fbarbe

My submission has been rejected for appearing to "read more like an advertisement". Note that I have not been paid and have no financial interest in the project (which is a research project) to write this Wikipedia page. I have, however, used Ludii for my bachelor thesis, so I am aware of my bias. This is my first time writing a new Wikipedia article, and would be very grateful if someone could highlight the paragraphs/parts that make it sound like an advertisement and that I could change. Fbarbe (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fbarbe In the first instance please approach the reviewer who declined it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Chrisw1117

Why was it declined? Chrisw1117 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisw1117: for the reasons given in the decline notice and the accompanying comments. Have you read them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I based it off another award winner from the same award? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivi_Lin Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrisw1117: the Vivi Lin article has its own problems, mimicking it may not be a good idea. In any case, we don't assess drafts by comparison to whatever may exist out there, but by checking whether they meet the necessary standards for publication. Yours fails on notability grounds, due to its sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources is not credible? They are all from news agencies and the award platforms themselves , (sorry I am just trying to learn lol) Chrisw1117 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award platforms are what we call primary sources, we need reliable secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So would the news agencies that confirmed the awards and discussed not count to support? Chrisw1117 (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Arunvikram2208

My article is getting declined even after adding independent sources Arunvikram2208 (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunvikram2208: there is precisely one source cited!
This draft is being declined for lack of evidence of notability. That requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
Congrats on creating a strong contender for the longest article title, though. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you added sources, but I only see one source. You should first gather your sources and then summarize them- not write a text and then look for sources to support it- see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 115.114.90.174

Hi,

Why my article submission is rejected multiple times despite the fact that it provides all the necessary information from relevant trusted sources. ?

Kindly help. 115.114.90.174 (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find no draft with such a title, and your edit history under this IP address shows only one edit, namely this help desk query. Please provide more details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have been editing the following page: Draft:Bharti AXA Life. I have submitted the article twice as per the requirement. But now, it got's deleted. Please help me to retrieve the same and in editing the article as per the wikipedia guidelines. RahulRaiSahab (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Bharti AXA Life
Okay, thanks. As you can see, the title is different from what you first gave.
This draft has been deleted as promotional. You may ask the deleting administrator to have it returned to you for drafting, but this is far from guaranteed.
What is your connection to this company? I will post a query on your talk page, please respond to it promptly. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:45, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Vicpaz

Hello, I've been working on this article about a living musician (that happens to be my husband) for 9 months now, I started by clicking on a red link on his American label's wikipedia page.

I'm not getting any response on my messages to the last reviewer, and he mostly justifies the rejection by the "tone" issue, is the 3rd time I get this reason, I did a lot of work reading the Manual of Style, but it seems I still has some work to do (and stuff to learn)


This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.


Can anybody help me solve this "tone" issue? I collaborated editing many musician's articles (in other languages than English) I honestly I see a similar tone and overall style in my article, but I really appreciate any help.

Since the last rejection I did change some small details, removing references and a couple a words that could be considered "peacock" mostly adjectives .

Thanks in advance Vicpaz (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vicpaz I do not see it as an advert. The tone looks acceptable. All you need to dos to proves that he passes WP:NMUSICIAN and then resubmit it for further review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for jumping into this.
What I've found (as sources) satisfies Criteria for musicians #1, 5, 10 and 12.
For 1 there are the press quotes.
For number 5 (Has released two or more albums...on important indie labels) I was asked by a reviewer to remove ref pointing to Discogs (still can't understand why, but I did remove them) and to the label's release announcements. I cant point the article to any better than the label's announcement!
For number 10 there are the film and series placements, but for the major ones (Narcos, Ozark, etc) there are no media coverage, only a mention in the credits and some inclusions I referenced to specialized film-music sites.
For number 12 there for example one interview (1 hour long) that was a full career spanning one, with loads of biographical information. But I included that (somebody's suggestion on the live chat) as a "further reading" link. But it could be a reference to all major bio data in the article. I don't think is great to reference 10 times in the article to the same ref....Then again, you have to listen to the 1 hour interview to find the information (it's in Spanish)...
But thanks for reassuring me that the tone is ok, will look for help about the way to reflect the notability from the references into the article text...
Cheers Vicpaz (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:15, 9 November 2023 review of submission by PinneyFowke

I understand the comments that have been made.

2) I think I have misunderstood how to use Links and References, and included a number of them the wrong way round. I need help: a) To ensure where I should be using Links, and that they are correctly inserted b) To move some citations from Links to References and c) To make sure I type in References in the correct format. I have just included the internet URLs

2) I accept the comment about being a 'connected person', but have borne in mind that the structure of any entry needs to comply with the standards required, and am happy to have this considered, and expected this would be the case.

Thank you 

 PinneyFowke (talk) 12:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is inadvisable and highly discouraged(though not forbidden) to write about ourselves at all, please read the autobiography policy(as well as an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing).
If you wish to proceed, please see Referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 9 November 2023 review of submission by OkraKemp

The last reviewer of my article removed an entire paragraph of content, not just references as they state. Is that allowed? Can you direct me in finding the original content that is now missing? OkraKemp (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OkraKemp Please examine their edit. Unless I am mistaken, Mcmatter has done precisely what they said. All prior versions are available to all in the history tab, except in exceptional circumstances.
I have flagged that I cannot find your declaration under WP:PAIDanywhere. I can find a use of {{Connected contributor}} at Draft talk:Okra Energy. Istead you need to deploy {{paid}} with parameters filled out on your User page, and {{Connected contributor (paid)}} on the article talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OkraKemp I did remove entire paragraphs in this edit, because they were off topic. We have an article on LNG if the reader wishes to know more on that topic, they can click on the link to that article. This draft is supposed to be on Okra Energy not LNG. Stick to the facts of the company and base it on what others have stated about the company in reliable source. As for the question is that allowed? Absolutely, no one owns any particular draft or its content. My edits were to help assist in guiding you to a better draft. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Craigmateo

Advice needed on how this article could be adjusted to be accepted. I've removed biased language and added 3rd party citations. I'm having trouble understanding that it's not a notable enough topic. Craigmateo (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigmateo Please start by approaching the editor who rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Kimbamy

Hello, I translated this article from the italian one and I added some more references. I think it is complete enough. Can you helpe me understanding what is missing, maybe with an example? Kimbamy (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 9 November 2023 review of submission by 5.101.23.224

Why are the sources presented not suitable? The authors of the books are well-known scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, VK is not a reliable source as it is user-generated content so should not used. S0091 (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are links not to VK, but to PDF versions of books written by famous Soviet scientists 5.101.23.224 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

What exactly do I need to update to ensure I get published :) NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing.
You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can I list pages that I am messaged as external links or autobiographical links should not be on the wiki at all? NatalieMeisner (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:49, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Roddy Quezada Granados

As a representative and unbiased individual who has professional knowledge of Doreen, I have created this draft with original content and photos for which I obtained her permission to use. I'm puzzled by the rejection of this draft and some guidance would be greatly appreciated. Roddy Quezada Granados (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one cited source which is an interview so is a primary source and not independent. What she has said, written or created is not useful. What is needed are reliable secondary sources with no affiliation with her that have written about her (again not what she says, etc.) such as critical reviews of her work. Also, external hyperlinks do not belong in the body of the article. Almost everything under the "Works and Contributions" section is a hyperlink and they all appear to be mostly primary sources (production company, publisher, etc.) so not helpful. S0091 (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Roddy Quezada Granados. S0091 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Roddy Quezada Granados Pivtures are handled at Wikimedia Commons.mThey are upper deletion there. Visit c:COM:VRT and follow the instructions there, please. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 9 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieMeisner

Can someone help me with trying to resolve these issues in more detail:

that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I don't see secondary sources that verify the article and prove notability, and the draft itself doesn't look very much like a proper Wikipedia biography.

NatalieMeisner I fixed your link for proper display- the whole url is not needed. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Autobiographical articles are highly discouraged(though not forbidden), please see the autobiography policy as well as how an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. You've summarized your work and desscribed your accomplishments- but the main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about(in this case) a writer, showing how they meet the definition of a notable writer or more broadly a notable person. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article (like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award). NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatalieMeisner Please be specific in the help you woudllike. This is, at the moment a plea for anything and everything. With recision, what abiut the comments you have acted here, is unclear to you. We can start from there.
Be aware that writing your autobiography is not a great idea. It is a rare person indeed who can be unbiased and impartial. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing about myself, I just named the account under the author so I can remember which account is for what information.
well I would like to start on what are the major issues with the writing. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I make it look more like a wikiepedia page NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner by summarizing what reputable sources have written about Meisner, own their own without any input by Meisner. Almost everything in the draft is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article which is why people writing about themselves or those close to them is so strongly discouraged here. Its rarely successful. S0091 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing this based on the author. I am not the author being written about - I accidentally named myself by the username. NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Are you using multiple accounts? Please declare which you are using. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No this is my only account. I put my name as the username rather than the article name. This is my first time using Wikipedia NatalieMeisner (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner I suggest you change this name to another that is not Ms Meinser's. We have a rule: One person - one account. Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple will be your friend here. It is improper to appear to be adopting the person of Natalie Meisner.
Please make this your first priority 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have changed my username to my personal account name. Memeraj (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieMeisner Thank you for requesting a name change.
With regard to the writing, please read WP:MOS. Put simply, we require dull-but-worthy prose, and for a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That should be sufficient to get you started. Work by gathering the references first, marshal the facts you intend to use into a storyboard for the draft, and only then write what the references say in your own words, without close paraphrasing. You will be amazed how different the end product is, so consider abandoning your existing words. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj pinging the correct user! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do I fix the look of the wikipedia page... apparently it isnt looking like the proper way it should. Memeraj (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Memeraj HELP:YFA and WP:MOS should guide you 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 9 November 2023 review of submission by Likelihoodist

I hope that you can provide clarification as to the reasons for this rejection as well as suggestions as to how my entry can be improved.

The stated reasons are as follows:

1. Does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.

Odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a standard topic in epidemiologic statistics. As such, I would think that this would make my article notable. This topic is covered in many textbooks on epidemiology. This includes Gordis Epidemiology (ref 1 on my submitted page), which is a standard text that is widely used for teaching elementary epidemiology. Perhaps I should also have referenced Rothman et al.’s Modern Epidemiology (See reference 15 in the Wikipedia article entitled “Odds ratio”). Rothman is a renowned American epidemiologist (see the Wikipedia article entitled “Kenneth Rothman (epidemiologist)” Their text, which covers this topic, is arguably the most authoritative text on advanced epidemiology available today.

Wikipedia does have an article on Odds ratios, which covers odds ratios for independent case-control studies but does not mention odds ratios for matched studies. It also has an article entitled “McNemar’s test”, which describes a test of the association between two dichotomous variables in a matched study. This test is also used to test the hypothesis that the odds ratio from a matched case-control study equals one. However, this page does not mention odds ratios or derive the maximum likelihood estimate for this statistic from these studies. The lack of any entry on odds ratios for matched case-control studies is a notable omission from Wikipedia that I believe should be filled.

Would my article be improved by citing Rothman et al.?

2. In-depth entry

Celentano et al. (ref 1 on my submitted page), Rothman et al. and Breslow and Day all cover this topic in detail. Celentano et al. discuss calculating odds ratios from a matched-pairs case-control study on pages 251–253 and 290 – 291. They do not give a proof as to why this odds ratio estimate is correct. Rothman et al. cover this topic on pages 287 – 288 and reference Breslow and Day 1980 (ref 2 on my submitted page). Breslow and Day provide the derivation of the odds ratio from matched 2x2 tables that is given in my article.

Do I need to clarify that the derivation that I give in my article is due to Breslow and Day and not a proof that I thought of myself?

3. Reliable sources

The references that are given in my article are authoritative. As mentioned in his Wikipedia web page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Rothman_(epidemiologist) , Rothman is a professor of epidemiology at Boston University and a distinguished Fellow at RTI International. The fact that his text is cited by Wikipedia’s “Odds ratio” page speaks to the reliability of his textbook. (His coauthor Sander Greenland is also one of the world’s leading epidemiologists. See the Wikipedia page entitled “Sander Greenland”. N.E. Breslow and N.E. Day were/are renowned 20th century biostatisticians. See their Wikipedia pages entitled “Norman Breslow” and “Nick Day (statistician)”. Leon Gordis was a professor of epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In short, the references on odds ratios from matched case-control studies could not be more reliable.

4. Secondary source

I’m not sure how this criteria applies to a statistical methods page. I do reference the paper by McEvoy et al. that provides an interesting application of this method. 

What sort of secondary source would be helpful for my article?

5. Independent sources

All of my references are independent from me. My name is Bill Dupont (see https://www.vumc.org/biostatistics/person/william-d-dupont ). I am not a personal friend of any of the authors cited in my article or given above. Also I am not a co-author of any paper written with these scholars.

In summary I am puzzled as to why my article was rejected. It appears to meet the criteria for publication in Wikipedia and would be a worthwhile contribution to the pages that you have already published on epidemiologic methods. I would be most grateful for any advice that you can give me as to how to improve my article to make it suitable for publication in Wikipedia.

References

1. Celentano DD, Szklo M, Gordis L (2019). Gordis Epidemiology, Sixth Edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier. p. 149-177.

2. ^ Jump up to:a b Breslow, NE, Day, NE (1980). Statistical Methods in Cancer Research: Vol. 1 - The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. Lyon, France: IARC Scientific Publications. p. 162-189.

3. ^ Jump up to:a b McEvoy SP, Stevenson MR, McCartt AT, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, et al. (2005). "Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: a case-crossover study". BMJ. 331: 428. doi:10.1136/bmj.38537.397512.55.

4. Rothman, K. J.; Greenland, S.; Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.). Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 978-0-7817-5564-1. 


Likelihoodist (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Likelihoodist There is truly no need to out yourself. "Independent" means "Inependent of the Subject"
You might approach the reviewer who declined it. They wish to see an increase in the references. For matters os science we need to be as sure as we can be that things are not fi=ringer hypotheses. References help a great deal here. Is there any coverage external to Academe? If so it is useful. If not, no matter. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have tried to contact WikiOriginal-9 but have not yet received a reply. I am very much of a novice navigating Wikipedia so I may be looking in the wrong place. If he/she responds will it be here or should I be looking somewhere else?
It sounds like the major (only?) concern is insufficient references. I can certainly add more references to text books that discuss this topic or papers that use it in their research. Would you advise me to do this and see how the reviewer responds or should I wait for more explicit instructions about the concerns about the references that I have given? Likelihoodist (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

02:54, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Cd634011

Hello! This Wikipedia article has now been rejected two times, very quickly, by two separate reviewers on Wikipedia. This is an academic book that has different standards for notability than other types of books, but it appears the reviewers are using notability standards for other kinds of books (fiction, mainstream press). I followed the guidelines for "Academic and technical books" (see below), and based on these guidelines, this book meets the standards for notability.

This is a highly specialized academic book, so I used those guidelines for notability per the "Academic and technical books" section of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in Routledge's Scientific Psychology series, which is a prestigious series that includes books by well-known and respected figures in mathematical psychology, such as Duncan Luce and Louis Narens. Books in this series normally undergo multiple levels of peer review. The following quote comes straight from the page regarding using academic presses as a source of determining notability for an academic and technical book: "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” 

The audience for this book is relatively narrow, as mathematical psychology is not a large field. As a tenured professor in Experimental Psychology, I believe it to be an important contribution and have used Chapters from the book in my graduate seminar in Cognitive Psychology. Indeed, as also referenced on the notability page: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material."

I have made edits to include over a dozen additional secondary references from sources that are independent of the book's author. These include references to textbooks, other academic books, and papers from other fields (e.g., neuroscience, education, economics) that use work featured in the book.

Please also note that while many of the original references are connected to the book's author, they are all from peer-reviewed journals and thus have undergone review by other experts in the field. These references are not independent of the subject, but they are in-depth and reliable, and they are important to demonstrating how the work in the book has been scientifically validated. Cd634011 (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cd634011, thanks for reaching out. Can you go into some more detail on why you think this is a notable academic book per WP:TEXTBOOK? Also, can you list the best 3 or 4 sources that go towards establishing notability? Thank you. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Here are the Wikipedia quidelines for establishing notability for "Academic and technical books", which is from the following page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books): "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, the number of editions of the book, whether one or more translations of the book have been published, how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions."
The book was published by an academic press (Scientific Psychology Series by Routledge) and has been required reading in one or more reputable educational institutions. The quidelines for establishing notability on the above Wikipedia page mention that books must meet at least one of the criteria (not all of them).
In addition, there are references on that Wikipedia page that provide additional context as to the notability of this particular book (please see my first post with the quoted material). Just as an example, it is cited on that Wikipedia page that "Publication by a prominent academic press should be accorded far more weight than the analogous benchmark defined for publication of mainstream book by well known commercial publishers, by virtue of the non-commercial nature of such presses, and the peer review process that some academic books must pass before publication is allowed to go forward.” This book was published by a prominent academic press and the book went through multiple rounds of peer review by independent experts in the field before it was published.
Finally, the following reference appears on the notability page for "Academic and technical books" and particularly applies to this book, as it is a highly specialized mathematical book: "A book's subject may be so specialized, such as in the esoteric math or physics spheres, that only a few hundred (or fewer) people in the world are situated to understand and comment on the material." Meeting this criteria implies that it is not expected to be highly cited by other books or in the media (a criteria for notability that should not be used here), which is OK given its technicality and limited audience. Cd634011 (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That looks promising. I'm not an expert on textbook notability so I'm going to hand this over to someone else. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:09, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Littleboybrew

I would like to understand what would make a museum notable? Littleboybrew (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, those sources aren't that bad. I've seen worse. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Didgeridoo2022

I believe that Ozjasz Wasser qualifies for a Wikipedia article and that the submission is adequately supported by reliable sources. Wasser played a very important role in Jewish life in Lviv from early 1900s until his death in 1941. This fact is mentioned multiple times by the sources provided. These secondary sources meet the Wikipedia source requirements. They are all published, reliable and independent of the subject. The Balaban book on the Tempel Synagogue contains the most extensive references to Wasser. This includes his biographic information and the tribute to him by the Chief Rabbi of the Synagogue. I could offer a rough English translation to the reviewers if necessary, since my guess is that they don’t know Polish and haven’t read the source. The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora Polish Series (Lwow) is a well-regarded and invaluable source that documents Jewish life in Lwow that was obliterated by the Holocaust. Wasser is mentioned multiple times in the series and it is clear he was one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Lwow from the early 1900s until his death in 1941. The Lviv Interactive Center of Urban History is playing a critical role in resurrecting the Jewish culture and life prior to the Holocaust in modern day Lviv. The Center has done extensive research and the fact that they have chosen to reference Ozjasz Wasser in the roles he played at the Tempel synagogue and as a well-known lawyer is evidence that Wasser was an important person in the Lviv Jewish community. The Wikipedia article on the Tempel Synagogue itself includes a reference to Ozjasz Wasser as the longest serving Chairman of the Board of the Synagogue. As we have discussed one of the consequences of the Holocaust, in addition to the tragic loss of life, was the total erasure of the Jewish people and community from cities like Lviv. This makes it extremely challenging when it comes to finding sources for documenting the lives of those who perished. In my view that is even more reason to acknowledge the importance to the community of the leaders of the Jewish community. Ozjasz Wasser was a leader of the Jewish community in Lviv that is well documented by several reliable sources. He qualifies for an article using Wikipedia’s own standards and I hope the reviewers will reconsider their decision. 

Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Didgeridoo2022, thanks for reaching out. I just took a look at all of the sources listed in the article and all of them except refs 1 and 10 are just passing mentions. Even though ref 10 isn't that much. Also, I can't open ref 1 to evaluate it. So, I can't tell where your getting your info from? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 (https://polona.pl/preview/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9) is far more than a passing mention.
I appreciate that you don't know Polish so this document is very difficult to read.
I have attempted to make it easier for you.
His name comes up 21 times:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=340
There is a whole chapter on Wasser:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=10
Because it is in Polish here is a small extract translated into English:
https://polona.pl/item-view/4e52614e-f6d1-407b-9e1a-fbccfbec4da9?page=247
"19. Celebrations to celebrate the twenty years of work of Dr. Ozjasz Wasser.
For twenty years Dr. Wasser held the difficult and responsible office of chairman of the Temple Management Board, devoting much work and time, money and abilities to this institution and trying to maintain it at the appropriate level. No wonder, then, that his colleagues in the Management Board, and especially those who had been following the pace of his work for years, decided to celebrate the anniversary in a solemn way, perhaps in part to reward the president for his efforts and diligence."
Ref 10 in the section entitled B. Progressives he is mentioned numerous times and he is also in a group photo.
So that's where I get most of my information from. Thank goodness that these documents have survived - so much information was lost and destroyed. I believe strongly that it is very important to remember the past so that we don't repeat the same horrendous mistakes in the future. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Do you know how to go to different pages? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your browser there should be a search option but failing that you have to use the left and right arrows. They don't make it easy! 159.196.103.151 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - I was logged out - apologies! Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your research! Let's see what others have to say. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I an not aware that there has been any response from others.
What should I do next to progress this? Should I edit the draft and add actual page numbers from the Polona document to various paragraphs in the draft as per our conversations above and resubmit? Perhaps talk to Tails Wx? Are you in communication with him/her? Perhaps you can explain to him/her that it is difficult to find extra resources because most if not all of them were destroyed during the Second World War?
Thanks for your help - it is much appreciated. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Didgeridoo2022: If you wanna submit it again, I'll add a link to this discussion so someone can take a look. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have resubmitted. Didgeridoo2022 (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

please tell me how i create my wikipedia. Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sukeshnr sinha only people who meet our special notability criteria may have a Wikipedia written about them. You do not meet that criteria. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Sukeshnr sinha

what are the requirements for writting the wikipedia ? please tell me the requirement.i am unable to create wikipedia instead of that i deserve for writting of wikipedia. please suggest. 

Sukeshnr sinha (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Your First Article @Sukeshnr sinha. Qcne (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Marinosk

Hello. I have drafted an article for The American College of Greece. The original version had many references to our website - exactly like many US educational institutions do. It has been taken down because the references were from our site. We have rewritten the article in an as plain way as possible, sitting respectable media of Greece as sources. Again, it was rejected because the "references were not reliable". Can someone guide on what to do? Marinosk (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Marinosk. Firstly you must immediately make a paid decleration disclosure. Follow the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do so is a breach of the Wikimedia Terms and Conditions and will lead to your account being blocked. Qcne (talk) 12:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. My user page stated that I work for the organization - it now states it as per WP:PAID instructions. I need some guidance on references please. Marinosk (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Marinosk. I've had a closer look at the draft and I think it could do with one or two more sources that discuss the history of the school or review the school in some way, but are very specifically independent of the school: this means not database entries, not interviews with faculty. The ekathimerini article for example is just an interview with Dan Smith which doesn't confer notability. Since it is such an old institution there must be sources - even offline ones - in newspapers and journals and books that discuss it? Qcne (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. There are lots of ofline sources - we have a museum full of them. How can I reference them? Marinosk (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marinosk Offline sources are fine as long as they are published in some way. You'd reference them as you'd reference any other source. Qcne (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:15:09, 10 November 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by 80.180.135.200


80.180.135.200 (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ please restore this deleted draft, give me a chance to prove to you that it has all the notability to be published. Gaetano Minale

Hi IP, please see WP:RESTORE for how to request a page be undeleted. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Manike23

Hi, my article was rejected again and the reason given as "Removing the IMDb sources, the remaining sources are not enough to establish notability in terms of significant coverage, etc." How ever the subject of this article is well recognised and award winning actor in Sri Lanka. He has also appeared in a few international films as well. I have provided local mainstream online newspapers along with the websites, IMDb pages, and exciting Wikipedia pages for cross referencing. I have see articles of Sri Lankan celebrities with far less referencing, thus, I don't know how to improve mine further. Appreciate your help. Thanks. Manike23 (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Manike23 IMDB is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDB) so you will want to find better sources if possible. I went through and wikilinked those that have articles which I think will help and you can check those articles to see if there are any helpful sources. I also found Eka Malaka Pethi which I did not see listed in the draft. Most of the awards are either unsourced or the cited source do not support he won the award though and please see WP:Words to watch. Things like his "he continued his passion" is not appropriate. As far as sources to support notability, interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and routine announcements like casting, release announcements, etc. are considered trivial. Those are fine to use to support a role though. S0091 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @S0091, for this detailed feedback. I will edit the draft accordingly and once done, do you mind if I tag you again to have a quick look at it before I resubmit? Much appreciate your support. Thanks. 2001:8003:EC02:DC01:C458:D7BC:D970:1810 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find it is best to get another eye on things and I may not be around so if you have any additional questions about the draft, just post a new query here and a knowledgeable editor will reply. S0091 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 Got it. Thank you. Manike23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Tbalaba

Hi, may I ask why my article has been declined? My contributions may seem a little short on reference but the article I am trying to publish is legit. Tbalaba (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tbalaba. I have rejected the draft which means it won't be considered further. You have a single source and the draft reads like an essay for a Catholic blog- not an encyclopaedic article on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:04, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle

While creating a draft article about Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/, I was advised to declare a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia admin. I did it by stating it in my Wikipedia user profile.

Apache Pulsar is an open-source project, that's development is controlled by Apache Foundation (non-profit organization).

I'm not an Apache Pulsar developer, I don't and didn't work for any company that spends money on developing Pulsar.

I helped with its site (not with the project itself) for free. Here is the list of my contributions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avisortelle+is%3Aclosed

The main reason why I did it, is because it was hard to read project documentation. It looked not accurate, black font on blue background was quite not-readable. Software engineers usually spend a lot of time reading the documentation of projects they use. Another reason is to not spoil the first impression for new users. I declared that I'm ready to help with the new, more clean site version. You can find the old site version in the WaybackMachine if you want to.

Also, I reported several bugs (mistakes in Pulsar code). Something like when you contact some product's support to tell them that they have an error on their site, but in public. Here is the list: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Avisortelle+

I'm just a Pulsar user at this moment.

For open-source projects, it's a common practice when users report program errors or even fix some errors. Similar to if you found a typo or mistake in a Wikipedia article while you read it.

I didn't sign any contracts with the Apache Foundation on the volunteering initiative.

At this time, I didn't receive a single penny for anything related to Pulsar. The projects I use Pulsar in, at this moment also don't make any money. They are mostly a hobby projects to better understand the broader event-driven architecture topic. I picked Pulsar by making own research and evaluating other similar projects about 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visortelle (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I'm not sure that I have a conflict of interest here. I'm an Apache Pulsar user who noticed that Apache Pulsar has no article on Wikipedia. Same as some iPhone user add's an article about it's new model.

If I am, then by this logic, anyone who is volunteering for Wikimedia projects in any way (makes edits), also must declare the COI and therefore can't continue to make edits. Visortelle (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proper forum to discuss COI issues is WP:COIN. You don't have to sign a contract to have a COI. You said on your user talk page "I volunteering for the Apache Foundation - also non-profit organization." That is absolutely a COI, full stop. Comparing it to Wikipedia editing is a red herring. WMF employees must and do declare their relationship. Volunteer editors do not have a COI with regards to Wikipedia itself. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot ok, I duplicated the question to the right page. Visortelle (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe I wrongly used the word "volunteering". Probably it's because I’m not yet used to communicating with the audience who isn't familiar with how open-source works.
If we'll look at it with your point of view, then any user who contributes to any open-source project, can't write an article about it. Is it right?
When you use any software library project, you need to report bugs and make contributions to it, otherwise you'll can't use it normally.
From what you're saying, only users who don't have any initiative, are able to write any articles on Wikipedia. But if they don't have any initiative to contribute to the project by reporting or fixing bugs, they unlikely will have initiative to write an article on Wikipedia. Visortelle (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Maybe not my deal, but did you happen to work as a lawyer by any chance? :) Visortelle (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I'm reading the WP:COI page and can't find anything about that volunteering is a full stop even by your understanding of volunteering.
Could you point me to the specific paragraph? Visortelle (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I don't have any of the listed relationships:
> Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial.
  • I don't have any friends or relatives in the ASF.
  • ASF isn't religion.
  • It's not about politics. I'm not a politician.
  • It's not an academy.
  • I didn't sign anything with ASF, not physically, not digitally.
  • I didn't ever get paid by ASF.
Visortelle (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who contributes to an OS project obviously has at least a potential COI in writing or editing about the project in Wikipedia. That does not mean they cannot write an article. It does mean that they should be aware of, and follow, the recommendations about editing with a COI. ColinFine (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Thevikastanwar

I Try to a lots of time but still in draft Thevikastanwar (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thevikastanwar It has been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of scanned articles

Hello, I am trying to get my draft validated (Draft:Bernhard Ruchti) and I am almost there according to the last comments, but I cannot seem to have a clear answer regarding the validity of scanned articles for the notability of a musician. I have the following sources. The comment that was made is that the sources provide from the website of the artist. It is a fact, since the artist scanned paper articles that are not available digitally. Are scanned articles not considered as valid sources that are external, written about the artist by someone else than him, and that are not interviews? I referenced in the notes 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16 that are PDF scans about him. Also the Christo Lelie article (not 16), in Dutch, is entirely about his work. I also received the comment that the "https://www.liszt-franz.com/musicologie appears to be a translation from German to English of an article written by Ruchti which is not acceptable as it is in effect, another self-citation" but I know for sure that it is not the case since I know the person who published it, why is it considered a translation? Finally, I understand that the source 7, written by an academic person for an academic journal is valid, so only two remaining sources could be added. I have extra sources but I would like to know if they are valid:

- This is about the Beethoven recording: https://www.tagblatt.ch/kultur/langsamer-musizieren-braucht-mut-ld.1149042

- This is also about the Beethoven recording: https://www.saiten.ch/langsamer-ist-besser/

- This one is about the Schumann recording: http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2020/Nov/Schumann-fantasie-MJMCCK190.htm

Thank you for your help. Dkoltorcan (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dkoltorcan: there is no need to scan sources, or to cite previously scanned ones that have been uploaded to another website. Instead, you should cite the original publications using the relevant {{citation}} template, eg. {{cite-news}} or {{cite-web}}. If the source is offline, you may include a quotation to highlight the relevant part which supports the statement you're making in the draft. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. Dkoltorcan (talk) 14:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467

Understanding what can be done before a resubmission.

Can you please explain if more references from independent publications will help? Or your decision is that whatever the references, you will reject any future submission? 2600:4040:98C0:6600:A198:F874:2A80:467 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't necessarily need more, we need enough significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. It looks like the Les Echos (France) piece might be one instance. We'd like to see three. Which other two do you feel represent significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources? Valereee (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "Early life and education" and "Persinal life" sections are entirely unreferenced, in violation of the core content policy Verification. Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Dogma.geneva

totally disappointed by reviewers advice which completely fails to account how the review met the requirements of the platform. Seek solutions. Dogma.geneva (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dogma.geneva: do you have a question you wish to ask?
This draft has been correctly declined, as the referencing is inadequate. Moreover, the subject does not appear to meet notability requirements, per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dogma.geneva please have a read of WP:NBOOK, which I linked to you before on my first decline notice. There is zero evidence that Petriots meets our special definition of notability, the criteria of which you can find at that link. You have at least now cleaned up the overly-promotional language so I assume you correctly understood and read the WP:NPOV guidance. But you do not seem to have understood the WP:NBOOK criteria yet? Let me know when you do. Qcne (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dogma.geneva, by far the most common way to show the notability of a recently published book is to provide references to several in-depth reviews of the book published by mainstream reliable sources. Your only independent source does not seem to qualify, as it seems to be more about the dog than the book. I can only read the first few paragraphs because of a paywall, but it does not seem to be an in-depth book review. Cullen328 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:00, 10 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D

Hello! Please let me know what else needs to be done. I have been trying to submit the article for months, fixing things according to how I understand what needs to be done, but unfortunately making no progress. I am new to Wikipedia, and this particular article is very important for promoting the Ukrainian ballet, for letting the world know that not only Russian ballet exists, especially in today's realities. Whatever I do, I still get the same reason for declining the submission. I need someone to show me point by point where the so called "unsourced claims" are. I will not give up! 

2001:4060:C00F:F8B0:0:0:0:367D (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answered below. Qcne (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Konanado

Hello! Please help me understand what needs to be done for my submission to be eventually accepted. I try to improve my article every time it gets declined, but I fail to understand what "unsourced claims" are. The last decliner took wikiholidays now, and I have no one else to ask for advice at the moment. This article contributes to promoting the Ukrainian ballet, which is very important in today's realities where the world only knows the Russian ballet. Thanks in advance! Konanado (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Konanado. Another user (you?) had a discussion on my Talk Page where I went over the issues with the draft. I hope it will be of help.
I'll go through the draft and point out some unsourced claims:
- Her Date of Birth and Location of Birth
- Her parents
- Her stage debut
- Her career at KMATOB
- Her career as a teacher at Kyiv National I. K. Karpenko-Kary Theatre, Cinema and Television University
- Her career as a ballet master at National Opera of Ukraine
- People‘s Artist of Ukraine award
- The entire Repertoire and Tours sections.
Every single bit of information that I've highlighted above needs an in-line reference. If the information is already found in existing references, then feel free to repeat a reference more than once (using the same citation number), or change the layout slightly so that each paragraph has about one citation at the end. If there are no references for these pieces of information then they must be removed or references found.
Please also be aware that promotion of any kind (including of Ukrainian ballet!) is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. This is a site to document notable topics, not to promote them.
My genuine opinion is that this draft could be accepted if you could just fix those missing references from the highlighted information above. If you do, please let me know on my User Talk Page and WP:PING me, and I'll have another look. Qcne (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:14, 10 November 2023 review of submission by Gudwise

Is there anything to do when article/subject doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG at all? Gudwise (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gudwise Yes. Something else. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the answer is yes then what else? You can contribute on that article. Gudwise (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gudwise, there are 6,743,121 Wikipedia articles that you can help improve. Please do not waste your own time or the time of other volunteers trying to write about non-notable topics. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 11

03:50, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Citizen arindam

I have used reliable news report's ( from famous Indian news platforms & newspapers like NDTV , Hindustan Times) but I don't understand why the article cannot be published. And also I have a pdf about the organisation from the Ministry of Health and Welfare West Bengal, India Citizen arindam (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Citizen arindam, thanks for reaching out. 2 sources is not enough. Usually, you need at least 3 pieces of non-promotional, in depth coverage. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11 November 2024 Major League Baseball season

Can you please fix the error i made on 2024 Major League baseball references please. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This help desk is for drafts going through the AfC review process. The article you mention is already published. In any case, if you can edit to make an error, I'm sure you can also "fix" it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey:DoubleGrazing Can you fix the error i made about ron washington being hired as angels Manager please. 98.186.55.18 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, this is not the place to ask this. The best place to ask is the article talk page(Talk:2024 Major League Baseball season) if you are unable to fix it yourself. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:36, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Vinraj123

I could not able to remove a part of references mentioned at the bottom of the draft article. Please help me to remove the all the references so that I can paste the correct ones in order. Vinraj123 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinraj123: you can remove the first 14 manually-created (which you shouldn't do anyway) 'references' just by normal editing. The other ten are created automatically from the inline citations you've made, and need to be deleted one by one from the body text where they are referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB

Hello, Instead of opting for a whole page dedicated to Astronism which I understand might be premature at this stage, would perhaps a brief mention of Astronism on the page Astronomy and spirituality be more appropriate? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_spirituality Or perhaps the page Astronomy and religion - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_and_religion Since Astronism is presented as a religion focused on astronomy, inclusion in one of these pages may be more appropriate due to insufficient notability for a whole page dedicated to Astronism. This may be appropriate as these two page listed have not included any contemporary examples of interaction between astronomy, religion and spirituality from what I've read. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Kind regards. 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section to the Astronomy and spirituality page just to see what people think instead of giving Astronism its own page which seems inappropriate at this stage. Let me know your thoughts. 2A00:23C5:2887:6401:61CE:B890:6847:A3FB (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to apologise for my earlier rejection which was rightly undone as an error. This came from an inherent bias I have against new age religious movements. I'll recuse myself from getting involved in this draft and the contents. Qcne (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 80.180.135.200

to the administrators who want to help an 85-year-old artist whose draft of my artistic activity was blocked and eliminated while awaiting publication, I ask for the restoration and publication of my activity given to culture for over 50 years. Thanks Gaetano Minale 80.180.135.200 (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as already explained by the administrators you have been in touch with, there is more to this issue than simply restoring the deleted article, which in any case isn't something we can even do here at the help desk (with the exception of the few administrators who regularly patrol this forum). Sorry, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:47, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Xehadkabir

Submission rejected message was "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." how can i make it sufficient. Xehadkabir (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xehadkabir you can't, that's why it has been rejected. The draft will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 11 November 2023 review of submission by 14.98.204.11

Can I know the things to be done 14.98.204.11 (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No things are to be done, as this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Thewikicolumnist

I don't understand why my article was rejected. Please advice me on steps to be taken to improve and submit my article. Thank you. Thewikicolumnist (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikicolumnist your draft was declined, not rejected. Did you read the decline notice which specifically explains what was wrong with the draft? It is not written in a tone that is acceptable for Wikipedia. Please re-write this in a way that complies with our strict WP:NPOV guideline. Qcne (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikicolumnist the entire draft is promotional starting with "Mohammed Rashed Farazuddin's political journey began with a strong commitment to addressing the concerns and issues of the people in the Shaikpet Division. He gained recognition for his grassroots approach to problem-solving and his dedication to improving the living conditions and infrastructure in his constituency." Just simply state when he entered politics, dry facts, nothing more and also remove the Challenges and Achievements section. See also WP:Words to watch. S0091 (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Chicano Culture

This has been rejected once for notoriety. Another for lack of sourcing content, but the articles that would qualify appear to be ignored since the turnaround time between the rejection and read time for them is lower than the timing behind the rejection. Chicano Culture (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" would mean resubmission was not possible. It was declined because notability(not notoriety, which has a more negative connotation) was not demonstrated. See WP:BAND. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:59, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Fyathens

Hello there, I wonder what is the specific reason it rejected again. Fyathens (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as blatant promotion. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 11 November 2023 review of submission by Yevrowl

Please help me improve the article... or point out what is currently not exactly consistent with being posted on Wikipedia. Yevrowl (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last reviewer already answered this question. This is the end of the line for this draft. 331dot (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 12

00:56, 12 November 2023 review of submission by LovelyAngel1004

Excuse me, I really need some help with adding more information on the show "Audrey and Friends". The show is so obscure that it has been lost media for a long time. Also, I'm afraid that the article would be deleted after I submit it once again if I don't add enough information. I also want the article on Audrey and Friends to be seen on the web. So could you please help me with that? LovelyAngel1004 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try newspaper archives or the Wayback Machine? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Noseallergy

Hello, Not sure what is needed on this article to get it approved. The instructions are very convoluted, even for a college grad. Please tell me what needs to be fixed, added, removed, etc. in specific detail. Thanks, Noseallergy Noseallergy (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need at least 3 non-promotional sources of in depth coverage that are independent from the subject. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:39, 12 November 2023 review of submission by RBROBERTSON

I am writing to ask for help in addressing the November 3 comments on my submission about Marco Pasanella. The reviewer mentions that I should announce any potential conflict of interest as I am his wife. This seems like a fair request; but exactly how should I do this? In the body of the submission? Also, the reviewer requests the tone to be more neutral and warns against subjective words. I am happy to do so but am wondering what words seem non-objective. I don’t seem to be able to find any adjective that is not backed up by fact. Finally, the comment mentions that the entry should refer to a wide range of “independent reliable published sources.” Sources like Time, Esquire, Architectural Digest, Food & Wine, The Washington Post, NPR and The New York Times seem to meet this standard. I’m not sure what to do here. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your guidance!

Best, Rebecca RBROBERTSON (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NY Times and Esquire sources don't look that bad but it won't let me read them. Maybe someone else can take a look. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RBROBERTSON Regarding making a conflict of interest declaration, please post it on your User Page by following the instructions at WP:COI. Let me know if you need any help.
The tone is still not great: you need to write in a completely dispassionate way (which is going to be difficult if you are his wife!) and state the facts in a dry, formal tone. The easiest way to structure this is by paraphrasing or summarising the sources directly- don't include any information not stated in a published source. Qcne (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:24, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Palauisagoodcountry

bro how can i make this better Palauisagoodcountry (talk) 04:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources. I have no idea what that is supposed to be. It looks made up. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Aaditya SYY

I have attached all the website articles I have got regarding the movie. And I don't know what else to do. That is why I have resubmitted it the same. I am feeling helpless regarding getting the article accepted by wikipedia. I have given all the references that I got. Please help. Aaditya SYY (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaditya SYY: after no fewer than seven earlier declines, this draft was finally rejected as non-notable. If, as you say, better sources do not exist, then there is nothing to be done; this is the end of the road, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving our article a chance 7 times. Is there a chance I can come up with a secondary source and resubmit the article in the future? Please give me that one chance. Aaditya SYY (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya SYY Rejection typically means the draft is at the end of the road. If something fundamentally changes about the draft, like new sources that the reviewers did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the most recent reviewer directly.
This film is the only topic you have edited about. Do you have a connection to this film? 331dot (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got a contract to prepare a wikipedia article from the Producer of the movie. This is my first attempt to prepare a Wikipedia article. Aaditya SYY (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aaditya SYY You must declare your paid editing relationship immediately, this is a Terms of Use requirement. See WP:PAID. I will also post instructions on your user talk page. You should also read conflict of interest.
Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, even without a conflict of interest. That you chose to dive right in without first gaining some experience and knowledge is on you- if you are being paid to be here(unlike most of us), it's up to you to learn what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for guiding me. I will gain more experience. Yes, it is a work I'm being paid for, but the movie is genuine. The movie is real and it really got released, and the tickets for the movie were sold in Bookmyshow app as well. I understand that wikipedia article publication is not at all easy. But I will gain more experience and will get better at it by taking good guidance. Thank you. Aaditya SYY (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaditya SYY: just to clarify, nobody is saying this film isn't real; it's not like we're claiming it's a hoax. We're saying it hasn't been shown to be notable by Wikipedia standards, which is a hard requirement for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Rutvik888

i want to create a page for a school in sanath nagar hyderbad india, but it is not getting approved Rutvik888 (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. It is also clear you used an AI chat bot like ChatGPT to write your letter, don't do that. Qcne (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:36, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Rutvik888

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention the absence of a Wikipedia page for Hindu Public School located in Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, India. Hindu Public School is the largest educational institution in Sanath Nagar, and I believe that creating a dedicated Wikipedia page for the school is essential to provide accurate and comprehensive information to the public.

Hindu Public School has been a cornerstone of education in the community, contributing significantly to the intellectual and cultural growth of its students. Despite its prominent position, the school is currently not represented on Wikipedia, and this absence is a disservice to those seeking reliable information about educational institutions in Sanath Nagar.

I am eager to contribute to the Wikipedia community by creating and maintaining a well-researched and unbiased page for Hindu Public School. I have gathered extensive information about the school, including its history, notable achievements, faculty, and the impact it has had on the local community. My intention is to ensure that the Wikipedia page adheres to all guidelines and standards set by Wikipedia.

However, I have encountered challenges in getting the page approved. I understand the importance of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in maintaining the quality and reliability of information on the platform. I am committed to meeting these standards and request your approval to create the Wikipedia page for Hindu Public School.

To facilitate the approval process, I am open to any guidance or feedback from the Wikipedia editing community. I am confident that with your support, we can create a valuable resource that accurately reflects the contributions of Hindu Public School to education in Sanath Nagar.

Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response and the opportunity to contribute to the Wikipedia community. Rutvik888 (talk) 11:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rutvik888, the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is simply no evidence this school meets our special definition of 'notable' (the guidance of which you can find at WP:NSCHOOL). You've had seven (!) reviews. This is enough now, find something else to work on. Qcne (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search. There appears to be nothing in English about the school other than bare mentions. You could possibly try searching in Hindi, Telugu, or Urdu, but unless you can find three independent reliable sources, all of which contain significant coverage of the school, the school simply doesn't meet notability standards, which is the minimum requirement for articles.
Please don't keep posting your request for help at multiple boards and user talk pages. If you do find three instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, you can post those links to my user talk and I'll take a look, once. I'd strongly suggest that before bringing me three and only three such sources you read WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:INDEPENDENT. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and stop using chatgpt for your messages. ltbdl (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Bbilin

Hello,

Thanks a lot for accepting the page for publication. As I mentioned previously, I have no conflict of interest with the person, we are coming from the same small community and I think she (and other people including her partner) deserves having a wikipedia page. Myself I am a physicist working at CERN Switzerland, and hence have neither economic nor social connections with her.

Therefore, I would like to learn how we can remove the disclaimer on top of the page. The page now contains all the references that I have found about her career, also in English on top of the existing Turkish sources of Cyprus.

Many thanks, best regards,

B. Bbilin (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Found out how to remove the box from the page, and updated accordingly. Bbilin (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:45, 12 November 2023 review of submission by FoxtrotAzad

Dear Editor,

I have made amendments on the Rezal Khairi article and included notable references. Please consider to publish it based on the recent amendments.

Appreciate your kind understanding on this matter.

Thank you. FoxtrotAzad (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FoxtrotAzad the draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, there is nothing more to do. Qcne (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 108.21.67.83

I need help, with the permission, I ask that the draft of Georgios Dritsakos to be transferred improve and let somebody else to create an article of Georgios Dritsakos. I'm not good at it. 108.21.67.83 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you relax, take it one step at a time, and work slowly and gently towards your goal? The goal is to prove that the subject is notable in a Wikipedia sense. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Www.mioshy

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I have revised my submission about Yitzhak "Itzik" Barlev, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines for notability, neutrality, verifiability, and proper formatting. I have focused on providing factual, well-sourced information about Barlev's career and the impact of his work, avoiding any promotional content. I have disclosed my relationship with the subject to avoid any conflict of interest and have used reliable, independent sources to back all statements made in the article. I believe this revised version aligns with Wikipedia's standards and would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Please let me know if there are any further adjustments needed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yitzhak Barlev Www.mioshy (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:36, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 80.180.135.200

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR1Wp1jtXzaBidgHmkWB9leeonr_qufmbqrr41sqPHTPsj72q6kwh9b2VjQ I kindly ask for the deleted draft to be restored and the subsequent publication of the page on Wikipedia because I believe it was deleted unfairly. Thanks Gaetano Minale 80.180.135.200 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to request this is at WP:REFUND. However it is fairly clear that this will be declined due to the issues surrounding paid editing, sockpuppets, and lack of notability.
Please give up this endeavour, and refund any money you took from the clients to create this article. Qcne (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
egr. Mr Qcne you did not read what I wrote correctly, I am Gaetano Minale, an artist where someone created an artistic profile of me and sent it for publication and there was no payment on my part as compensation, which is a very serious thing which he stated. I have 50 years of artistic life in Italy and in the world which is all documented on this website of mine www.gaetanominale.com. Please consult it and you will see that everything you have said is not true. Thank you and I hope you can understand and help me. Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Ghrimovich

i do not understand why nokeric is not "notable" enough for wikipedia? i think this is a mistake, maybe this is a case of corruption and personal sabotage. i would like this to be reviewed by another individual. Ghrimovich (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghrimovich What is your connection to Mr. Bernhagen? (since you took a picture of him)
You have no independent reliable sources in the article. Any article about him must summarize what independent reliable source with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about him, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person.
Corruption and personal sabotage are very serious accusations requiring serious evidence. Provide your evidence(without outing) or withdraw the accusation. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i apologise for my baseless accusation i am just immensely passionate about Mr.Bernhagen and his art, i want it do be documented and memorialized in the vast hauls of wikipedias archives. i regret my words and with the utmost respect for the work of the wikipedia team i sincerely apologise and withdraw my accusations. I am unaware of the machinations or processes to install links to sources for the article. Ghrimovich (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghrimovich As presented, the subject is not notable, except to those who are his fans.
For references, please read WP:REFB and WP:CITE. It's not hard. I say this because everyone adds references. The finding of references is the hard thing, not the adding of them to an article.
Please take a couple of paces back and read the links I have given you. We will ignore your rant of frustration since you have made a proper apology and withdrawn the comments. For the future, please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Meanwhile concentrate on finding references. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ghrimovich, your draft is packed full of unreferenced promotional fluff like he discovered a passion for creating content and catapulted into internet stardom and The dynamic between Bernhagen and his mother has become a beloved element of his content, contributing to the authenticity and charm that has endeared him to his audience. Every trace of that kind of promotional language must be removed from your draft. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:03, 12 November 2023 review of submission by 74.74.209.253

I do not understand how this article has twice been rejected for not showing "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article references two separate articles hosted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as well as three separate recognized news outlets covering both the subject's campaign and incumbency. Other incumbents on the Massachusetts Governor's Council have entries (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Iannella_Jr.) with less information. Please help me understand the specific issues involved. 74.74.209.253 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. Other inappropriate articles cannot be a justification for adding more inappropriate articles. Articles from the Mass. government are primary sources and do not contribute to notability(though they can be used for other purposes). Interviews don't add to notability either. Notability isn't actually the issue as this person meets WP:NPOLITICIAN for holding elective office- but you still need sources with significant coverage of her. You don't have that now. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 12 November 2023 review of submission by James Taylor12

what contribution could be made James Taylor12 (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None, the draft has been rejected. You have no independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:12, 12 November 2023 review of submission by Davidwalker1981

I've added an infobox to the page but the first image I uploaded previously remains in the same place - I was hoping to replace that with the infobox. Could I get assistance with that change please? Thanks Davidwalker1981 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for asking about drafts; you may try the help desk. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Davidwalker1981, I removed the redundant image. Cullen328 (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! David Davidwalker1981 (talk) 09:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 13

02:19, 13 November 2023 review of submission by SerialNdesgination

I would like to enhance the article by including references to websites. If you agree, I can also create more comprehensive references. Once I have completed the task, I will notify you. Thank you for your consideration. SerialNdesgination (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@serialndesgination: your draft has been rejected and will never be considered again. ltbdl (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i cant create any articles again? SerialNdesgination (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you can create other articles, just not this one. ltbdl (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:51, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Jovana lukina

Hello

I have received the feedback that the article I created was not accepted for publication because the subject lacks enough notability.

Wikipedia says that good references indicating notability would be the type of article such as “… an interview, a biography, or …”. Using those guidelines I have included references that point out to notability of the subject I am writing about. 1. 3rd party summary on biography: https://theorg.com/org/mirrorcle-technologies/org-chart/lj-ristic

https://www.equitynet.com/c/crocus-technology

https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/person/18609238#xj4y7vzkg


2. Interview with Dr. Ristic https://www.sensortips.com/?s=rictic


3. References on Dr. Ristic’s executive appointments https://www.crunchbase.com/person/lj-ristic

Alpha Names Ljubisa Ristic Vice President of Technology and Business Development; Former Motorola Executive Selected to Manage Company's Technology Roadmap | Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (skyworksinc.com)

4. Reviews/presentation of the book edited by Dr. Ristic that contain words like “lucid” etc.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/sensor-technology-and-devices-ristic-ljubisa-ristic/1124243383

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0957-0233/11/12/710


5. Link on Dr. Ristic’s patent activities https://patents.justia.com/inventor/lj-ristic

6. Reference to the full reprint publication in the respected journal of one of the articles that Dr. Ristic has recently published that certainly speaks to notability of his work. https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/industrial/article/21274969/mirrorcle-technologies-mems-mirrors-the-next-big-wave-in-mems-technology

I believe all these references pass the test of notability as outlined by Wikipedia.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Jovana lukina (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:37, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Drnishakhanna

My article is rejecting. Please give the reason why my article is rejecting and how can i imporve it that is approved. Drnishakhanna (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What was the draft? I don't see where you've ever edited before... WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9 It is the now deleted Draft:Dr. Nisha Khanna.
@Drnishakhanna It appears you felt your autobiography would be appropriate. Its was judged to be advertising or promotion, and has been deleted as such. While you are welcome to try again it is suggested that you do not do so. An autobiography is likely to cause you to struggle. Almost no-one is capable of lack of bias about themselves. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:46, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Venom 200

Hello, I am attempting to recreate Jane-finch.com. I have cited several recent reliable and in-depth coverage sources to demonstrate the website's notability. However, there are many other media sources such as TV video coverage but where links no longer exist, or have expired. There are only saved versions on YouTube, but editors have said YouTube is does not qualify. I am still unable to get the page approved. Please help. Thank you. Venom 200 (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venom 200 You declared a COI, what is the general nature of your COI?
YouTube does not qualify as user-generated content, unless the video is posted by a reputable news organization on its verified channel. Videos do not have to be online, but you would have to provide enough information that someone could locate the video(like in a physical library archive). The award is meaningless towards notability as the award itself does not merit an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). You say that the website attracted attention but do not say what this attention was. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, 331dot. I added a reference links to mainstream new stories that are in-depth about Jane-Finch.com and should pass notability criteria. The attention it attracted was for its creation and existence to promote the Jane-Finch community. The other national news coverage of the website happened in 2005 and are no longer archived anywhere else.
Can you please have a look of the links I have provided in the article? It should pass notability requirements.
CBC video segment about Jane-Finch.com:
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1048050755589
Toronto Sun:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517023812/https://torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/05/12/5538201-sun.html
Webpage and 60 min radio story:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/docproject/a-feeling-of-shock-how-a-toronto-creator-s-jane-finch-website-drew-the-ire-of-police-local-radio-station-1.5817658 Venom 200 (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Leo211

All the requirements of the editors (Qcne, Johannes, GoingBatty, Vanderwaalforces, Kilaseell) were met. As a result, each paragraph in the draft article "Petro Kotin" has a link to an official source (parliament website) or a link to a source in a respected media outlet, for example СNN, Reuters, U.S. News etc. What is the meaning of the Lightoil editor's phrase: “This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia”? This is his subjective opinion! Please reconsider this issue and publish the article. With respect and hope for understanding. Leo211 (talk) 07:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo211: it is perfectly possible for the draft to be sufficiently referenced, and yet for the subject to be non-notable. If there is no evidence of notability, then that is the very opposite of "subjective opinion". In any case, this draft has been rejected now, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visibility of the topic to whom? Who evaluates the visibility of a topic? Subjectivity again) As far as I understand, if a topic is mentioned in the world and national media, on the websites of government organizations, then the topic is noticeable. Thank you. Leo211 (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you would be wrong. Please review WP:notability.
Also, who said anything about "visibility"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meaned "notable" but used
"visibility". Leo211 (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say "Kotin played a key role in the Energoatom project" but don't say what that role was. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are some obvious things. If a person heads the Energoatom company and this company implements the Energoatom project. Naturally, we can continue that this person is moving the project. Thank you. Leo211 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leo211 Your next step needs to be to contact the reviewer who rejected this and request they take a second look and discuss it with you. This is an appeal of the rejection. Most reviewers are amenable to a sensible and simple short case being presented to them.
Should this fail please come back here, ideally to this thread. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice. I will try to convince) Leo211 (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do reliable sources state that he had a particular influence on the project, something that someone else would not have done? 331dot (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Real projects are not always accompanied by detailed explanations during their implementation due to the need to protect them from attacks from competitors in the media. Upon implementation, detailed information about them is published. This project is still under implementation. Leo211 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Fact wiki world

Why contrary to Wikipedia regulation please? Fact wiki world (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks to be a blog post, not an encyclopaedic article. Qcne (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accepted your reply definitely. You are right. I also feel like that. You are right my article is more or less similar to blog post. If that is your review, I have no complain for your rejection. You did good. We have gained a lot of knowledge from Wikipedia. Thanks to the founder and its all staff members. Keep it up! Fact wiki world (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:42, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 103.85.206.37

Can you explain why it's rejected clearly 103.85.206.37 (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been declined (not rejected) for "insufficient context", which is a fancy way of saying "huh, what is this?!"
Of course, this could equally have been declined for lack of referencing, lack of evident notability, or as a likely hoax. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:59, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 87.1.48.40

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ questa volta lo scrivo in italiano, come posso ottenere la grazia su Wikipedia ed essere di nuovo presente su questa enciclopedia? tutti cercano di eliminare qulsiasi pubblicazione venga fatta a nome d Gaetano Minale e nessuno che cerca di aiutarmi e essere reintegrato dopo 6 anni di blocco infinito. Cchiedo nuovamente ai sigg amministratori di riaprire questa mia bozza di profilo per essere pubblicata, credo che dopo oltre 50 anni di attività artistica come pittore meriti questa pubblicazione. Vi chiedo di consultare questo mio siti web con tutto quello che c'è da sapere sulla mia attività artistico svolta fino ad ora www.gaetanominale.com Grazie Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Translated:
this time I write it in Italian, how can I obtain pardon on Wikipedia and be present on this encyclopedia again? everyone is trying to eliminate any publication made in the name of Gaetano Minale and no one is trying to help me and be reinstated after 6 years of endless blocking. I ask the administrators again to reopen this draft profile of mine to be published, I believe that after over 50 years of artistic activity as a painter it deserves this publication. I ask you to consult this website of mine with everything you need to know about my artistic activity carried out up to now www.gaetanominale.com Thanks Gaetano Minale
Response
This is the wrong forum. To appeal a block please see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gaetano_Minale?fbclid=IwAR0g76YjLsaE4lIteBxKPFsiknFPxPiDSDIbRf_cggzFID22e2LKEGk3eVQ
per favore Fiddle , per il blocco farò come lei ha proposto, ma la prego ripristina questa bozza cancellata in inglese , dammi la possibilità di dimostrarti che ho tutte le carte in regola per essere pubblicata, controlla questo mio sito con tutte le notizie e vedrà che 50 anni di vita artistica sono tutti documentati.
www.gaetanominale.com
. Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translated:
please Fiddle, for the block I will do as you proposed, but please restore this deleted draft in English, give me the opportunity to demonstrate to you that I have all it takes to be published, check this site of mine with all the news and you will see that 50 years of artistic life are all documented.
Response
We will await the outcome of your unblock
I visited your site. For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. So if Fiddle has visited my site he will also have noticed that all the news sources are visible in photos from the time or before the internet, with national newspaper clippings, 3 art magazines and many reviews written by famous critics, not to mention of the approximately 100 videos published cg that talk about my work as an artist. Everything is documented visually. This means that my draft has and as references, please restore it and let me know.. thanks, Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing will happen until your block is addressed. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Fidlle, Wikipedia's statute suggests that unblocking can be done through an administrator, so I ask you if I can't access Wikipedia because it's blocked, how can I get in touch with an administrator who can study and help me? If you can, why don't you help me? Thank you . Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:20, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Vandeep243

There's a draft Guroudev Bhalla. Can someone improve it and make it ready for submission? Please let me know then will try to submit to review. Thanks Vandeep243 (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vandeep243 Why don't you do it? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking a volunteer to choose to spend a considerable amount of their own time working on improving a draft about a subject which is of interest to you, and who you have not shown to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
It is possible that somebody might be willing to do this, but you have made no attempt to engage anybody's interest, simply asked somebody to do a load of work to achieve your purpose. Why would you expect anybody to agree? ColinFine (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 2600:6C5D:5BF0:A2F0:182C:4B99:14C6:687

i need help putting aimkid on here please 2600:6C5D:5BF0:A2F0:182C:4B99:14C6:687 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero indication this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Try making an article on youtube.fandom.com Qcne (talk) 15:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:57, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Dhrubajit61

Hello my last article (Ladli Behna Yojana) was legitimate article. You can check all popular news website about this scheme. Reviewer has commented that 'I don't know about this'. Is this a reason to decline the article!! Plz gather some information and recheck it. Thanks! Dhrubajit61 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dhrubajit61. The draft was correctly declined. Wikipedia articles must provide context to readers with little familiarity of the subject: your draft is incomprehensible to someone outside of India. However it should also be noted that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, which is the second reason why your draft fails. Qcne (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 184.88.156.114

please say okay to my business 184.88.156.114 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is an encyclopaedia for notable topics, not ..whatever your draft is meant to be. Qcne (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Mohammad Z. Islam

So, what should I do please suggest me. Mohammad Z. Islam (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, @Mohammad Z. Islam. The article(s) you have submitted have been rejected and will not be considered further. Qcne (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are various institution share there information. It is a non profit organization that help the industry worker. Mohammad Z. Islam (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I upload it by native language bn. Mohammad Z. Islam (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to write for other language Wikipedia projects: they are all different projects with different guidelines and policies. Qcne (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:24, 13 November 2023 review of submission by TlonicChronic

Hi! I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor (this is my first time attempting to create a stub). I was hoping to go through a few labels' catalogues and create stubs for the releases that didn't have articles, and let other fans and editors flesh them out as they wish. I was wondering if I could get some assistance knowing what sort of citations would be required to create a stub? I'm guessing nearly all the info I'll be attempting to add will be on the records themselves. Can I cite Discogs, which has usually has photos of the albums? Thank you very much for your time! TlonicChronic (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TlonicChronic. Unfortunately you can't cite Discogs, though you can add it as an External Link. Instead cite music magazines (including offline copies), review websites, books and the like. Basically anything that is published with some authority and editorial control. Qcne (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Is there any way of simply citing the release itself? The track listing (or titles), credits, copyright, etc. are under the direct authority and control of the licensed owner of the material. TlonicChronic (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly use primary sources to cite the release itself, but to pass our WP:NALBUM notability threshold we'd need some secondary sources too. Unfortunately only topics that pass that threshold should have an article written about them. We have thousands and thousands of poor-quality articles that already exist and should not, and we don't want to add to that amount by creating more articles with no/poor sources.
If you can't find those secondary sources, then I am afraid the album wouldn't be suitable for Wikipedia at the moment. Please don't let that discourage you, though. Qcne (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response! TlonicChronic (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:18, 13 November 2023 review of submission by 109.99.212.171

I don't know history,players,kit numbers positions from the club 109.99.212.171 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion would just be academic; the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:20, 13 November 2023 review of submission by Mypoetry2023

Our bio was declined due to: This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject .

How can I present or submit reliable secondary sources that are not available online? We have letters from all the awarding bodies, but there are no websites dedicated to my awards. thanks Mypoetry2023 (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mypoetry2023 Who is "our"? Only a single person should have access to and be operating your account. If you are Mr. Drummond, you should not allow anyone else to use your account.
A letter from a body that gave Mr. Drummond an award would be a primary source- any awards must be discussed in independent reliable sources like news reports. Additionally, the award itself needs to merit an article(like Pulitzer Prize or Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize) to contribute towards notability. You need to show significant coverage in independent reliable sources that establishes you meet the special definition of a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mypoetry2023, I would ask that you read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 14

00:09, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Tdlin

One of the comments left by the reviewer who declined my article was that I needed to cite date of birth. The subject was born in 1931 and I've been unable to find any articles that cite his date of birth? How do I resolve that issue? Also, I understand that my sources are somewhat obscure (e.g. the Hearing Journal); but the subject was involved in a narrow, yet important, technology sector of the 1970s not widely covered by large organizations or outlets that have digitized their records from that era? How do I work toward developing more reliable sources when much of the information comes from hard copies of articles written in newspapers and journals that do not have an online presence? Tdlin (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tdlin. If you cannot find a published source for a date of birth, you must remove the date of birth from the article. How did you know he was born in 1931? Do you know Scott?
It is completely fine to use offline sources (hard copies of books, magazines, journals, etc). The only criteria for sources is that they are published and reliable (i.e., not a random Facebook post discussing this person). It looks like Scott may indeed pass our WP:NPEOPLE notability threshold if you say he was covered in multiple newspapers and journals. Just cite them offline and make sure to cite every statement. If you can't find a citation that backs up the statement, the statement should be removed. Qcne (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:37, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 크로스픽쳐스

We don't understand exactly what is more needed for this article. The answers that we've got in the Talk's Page is too vague. 크로스픽쳐스 (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@크로스픽쳐스 check the film criteria at WP:NFILM. You need multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the film. I actually think your draft is borderline acceptable, it just needs one or two more sources that are independent. Add them and re-submit. Qcne (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:48, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Geetamehrotra12

Please someone help me editing this draft! Geetamehrotra12 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how can i contribute much to this draft but i guess it should be published to wikipedia so can anyone help me! Geetamehrotra12 (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Geetamehrotra12 you've not actually submitted the draft for review yet. You need to click the blue Submit the draft for review! button.
However: it is pointless to submit it for review as your draft is not appropriate for Wikipedia in it's current form. Only organisations that pass our strict WP:NORG criteria may have articles written about them. Ezee2Host does not pass this criteria. The draft is also written in a promotional way which is prohibited: please advertise this company on Facebook or something, not Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 09:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 14 November 2023 review of submission by StrangeBrotherhood

Hello, the draft of this page was rejected several times, but we have no idea what is missing? We think we have provided all information needed to fulfill the requirements. A more specific reasoning would help to improve. The current situation is disappointing because it only leads to people offering their help and they ask for money. Is this a business model? One guy rejects and then the next offers paid help?

Please let us know why it was rejected?

Many thanks and kindest regards. StrangeBrotherhood (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StrangeBrotherhood. If you have been contacted outside Wikipedia and offered an article review for money, please be aware this is a scam. Please read WP:SCAM. Wikipedia does not operate on this model - everything here is completely free and no one will ask you for money. Unfortunately organised scamming groups target users like you.
Onto your draft: it has been rejected as there is no evidence it passes our WP:NTEAM criteria. Have a read of that criteria. If you believe you can prove notability using sources that are independent, secondary, and reliable, then please contact the rejecting reviewer @M4V3R1CK32 and appeal to them to have another look at the draft. Qcne (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be perfectly clear. I have NEVER, and will never, offer to pass an article through AfC for money, for anyone. Period. Your post sounds like I contacted you outside Wikipedia for paid help. I did not, and there are strict rules against doing so. There is an insinuation there that I do not care for. @StrangeBrotherhood please be careful about how you phrase things.
As an addtional note, you repeatedly used the words "we" and "us". Wikipedia accounts are for one user only, per the one user per account policy. Please be aware that shared accounts are not allowed. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I mean the original post, not Qcne's reply. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by StrangeBrotherhood

Why is it not notable? Are you kidding me? StrangeBrotherhood (talk) 08:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. Qcne (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 27.33.233.138

How to get this article to be accepted 27.33.233.138 (talk) 09:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to appeal to the reviewer @Pbritti directly. Qcne (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Ashvin29

I have a Wikipedia editor free service, my page updated this time. attached my imdb here link Ashvin29 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ashvin29. I do not understand your question, could you rephrase?
I have declined your draft as there is no evidence you meet our special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia articles are not like LinkedIn or other social media websites. Only people who meet this special definition may have an article written about them. Qcne (talk) 09:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Thebackgammoner

Hi editors. My first time creating an article, hoping to get a pointer. I rewrote someone else's draft with a neutral POV. My submission was declined because of insufficient citations.

I've Googled lightyear and they've had coverage in other papers like AltiFi, irish times, cityAM, etc. I can see these publications are cited in the articles for Freetrade, Traderepublic, etc - should I add some of these as sources? I've so far avoided citing their blog or VC press releases, in favour of secondary stuff - is this the right approach? Thanks Thebackgammoner (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Thebackgammoner. My issue with some of your sources is that they are regurgitating press releases - you can tell as they all include something like "CEO stated...", "Cofounder told...". I wonder if you can find a couple of sources that offer analysis/interpretation/review/discussion of the platform? Those would be more suitable. Definitely don't cite their blog or the actual press release, but really the sources you've chosen are just the press releases one step removed, so not really adding much value. Qcne (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebackgammoner How did you discover this draft? It's not easy to find a draft unless one already knows it exists. Before this, you hadn't edited since 2017. The draft was the only edit of the editor that created it, who seemed to create their account specifically to do so. If you are connected to Lightyear, that must be disclosed, see conflict of interest. If you are employed by them or receive any form of compensation from them, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just did an advanced search for 'lightyear' (i.e. drafts ticked) and it was the first result. Seemed easier than writing it from scratch. I'm not connected to Lightyear, though I do use it. Fair enough about the citations - I'll have another look at some point, see if there's anything suitable. Thebackgammoner (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thebackgammoner You must immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons(that you uploaded). You did not provide copyright information- and Commons cannot generally host logos. Logos must be uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. "Fair use" does carry some restrictions, like being unable to be used in drafts.
In any event, images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You don't need to worry about adding the logo until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopdia. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I believe that this logo falls into the very small category of logos that are acceptable to Commons. I can't bring the place this is specified to mind right now, and am open to correction. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lightyear logo.png where I have suggested it is likely to be appropriate there.
@Thebackgammoner It would always benefit from formal permission and the discussion may disagree with me. Discussions on Commons can be swift or protracted, for no apparent reason. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot, @Thebackgammoner Found it. See Commons:Licensing § Simple_design. A little arcane, it surprised me when I saw it first. You can see why it's a very small subset of logos that are appropriate. Fair Use on a local language version of Wikipedia (this is one such) is simpler. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, very helpful. I nominated logo for deletion, but also added the Simple Design license info as suggested. I've added additional citations to the article too, but think I'll leave it for someone else to take from here. Thebackgammoner (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Intmig öa

Dear Reviewers, I'm relatively new to writing Wiki articles, but my first article on the same topic which I wrote in German was accepted without any interventions and now I don't know, what's wrong with the article in question. The comment to the last rejection wasn't completely right, since I did change something, what I supposed to be incomplete, which was the tags for the article. But obviously, something else is missing or not right and I would like to understand it. Any of your help is very appreciated. Kind regards Johann Intmig öa (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intmig öa Please understand that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies, and what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. Here, it is insufficient to merely tell about an organization and what it does- an article here must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intmig öa I think this was probably rejected too soon, so I have undone the rejection by @Jovanmilic97 Qcne (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I think upon a review you are probably right about it being too soon, but at that moment I felt it was appropriate as literally *nothing* has been changed since the decline. I know the OP here says there was a change, but the page history says otherwise. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about it, I've done the same. Qcne (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97 Excuse me, if I wasn't precise enough. I added the tags to the article as I thought it could be the problem for it not being accepted because of being incomplete. I don't know, if such changes appear in the page history. I hope you understand, that I didn't mean to deceive anybody. I'm new to editing here and appreciate an indulgent and patient communication. Intmig öa (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intmig öa All changes that are made successfully appear in the history tab. This is the way the software works 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Thank you for the info. In this case, @Jovanmilic97 may have oversaw my first changes, which were at the same time obviously not the changes expected from me. Intmig öa (talk) 15:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Intmig öa Oh, I understand now what you mean! But my point was that you didn't change anything in the main draft page after the 1st decline, be it text or sourcing. You only added page tags on a talk page, which is cool and appreciated, but not exactly making the main part of the draft itself passing the guidelines. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful reply. Intmig öa (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:03, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Elfredsoon

how do i make it a official page？ 

Elfredsoon (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elfredsoon: this draft has been deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't. We don't have "official pages" here. We have articles about notable topics that receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Jamesinhere

This draft submission was rejected multiple times due to the following issues:

1. Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Monster.com instead. Answer: In 2018, Quess Corp acquired Monster Worldwide’s businesses in Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions. With ownership change and lauch on new brand, I feel foundit can have it own page.

2. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Answer: I have further updated information and added credible sources so that someone can further review it. Jamesinhere (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesinhere Fundamental is the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Monster.com. What is the question you are asking, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent Monster.com is still an active business entity in USA and in 2018 Quess corp bought Monster APAC and ME region business and re-branded it as foundit (from job portal to talent management company). Here foundit (formerly Monster APAC & ME) is a different business entity (under Quess Corp) for which I have created this draft version and in other words monster.com is no longer active in APAC & Me region. Jamesinhere (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamesinhere I suggest you appeal to the reviewer who rejected it. Their rejection was for other reasons 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:03, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 212.154.22.50

Hi, I'm part of an indie game studio which has a published game on Steam and we're trying to setup the wiki page of our game. Currently there are no references because we've written it from our first person experiences about what the game is about and how the process went down until publishing it. However since there are no references, the page is being rejected. Can you help on what can we reference to get the page approved? 212.154.22.50 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are a paid editor, as defined in WP:PAID. This must be declared, but, unless you have a static, the declaration is challenging. Do you feel able to create an account? However, if you cannot find references I suggest you abandon the project
We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Clef le Tete

This perfectly valid entry has been endlessly amended in response to the instructions of your editors. Full author interviews and profiles have been submitted as per your policy, plus a long list of books with their ISBN numbers and selected reviews. Every time this entry is resubmitted a new disqualification is raised. This author and playwright has been producing works for forty years, and there is a great amount of verification available, but everything written and produced about him before Google appears to be discounted as too inconvenient for your editors. What can I do? Clef le Tete (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clef le Tete: what can you do? You might start by not attacking reviewers, who volunteer their time to help articles get published.
It is perfectly possible for a draft to be declined for different reasons each time, as a reviewer may decline for any applicable reason, they don't need to 'follow suit' with a previous reviewer, and do not need to choose decline reasons in any order of priority. If a draft has, say, five reasons why it could be declined, one is raised as the grounds for declining and this then gets addressed, the next time it will by definition be declined for a different reason. I wouldn't read anything more into that.
Offline sources (if by "before Google" you mean that) are perfectly acceptable, but they need to be cited with sufficient detail to enable them to be reliably identified and verified. Please see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
The last decline was for lack of evident notability. The sources you wish to use to establish notability must meet all the criteria in the WP:GNG standard, namely: multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DoubleGrazing. I am not attacking anyone and understand that you operate on a pro bono basis. The entry for this author was initially accepted and published by Wikipedia where it remained for several months. Then it was removed without explanation. When I sought an explanation I received an apology and was told by the editor that the objection was "vexacious" and had been raised by an editor who was not qualified to be an editor and had since been barred from the site. You will appreciate that this has caused me some distress. If the author and broadcaster Corless does not meet 'notablilty' criteria I would suggest that a purge of the entire Wikipedia content is urgently needed as I routinely come across entries with far, far less 'notability'. So once again, I would ask for your help with this deeply frustrating and long dragged out matter. Thank you. Clef le Tete (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clef le Tete In your distress, you are complaining. That's not going to prove the subject of the draft to be notable. What would be appropriate is to read the notability criteria, WP:NAUTHOR applies, and prove that the subject qualifies.
For the avoidance of doubt, let me explain our referencing needs
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That final sentence is fundamental. There is work to do. Go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I am not complaining. I said I am not attacking. I am complaining. I have read and understood all your criteria. They appear to be applied arbitrarily and not evenly, and as you have yourself confirmed there seems to be an element of a lucky dip about the process. I trust this complaint won't have my resubmitted submission binned. 2A02:8084:E81:3600:4995:9729:6FAD:D2DF (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see nowhere where I mentioned lucky dip. Nor did I suggest that you are not complaining. I did mention what you had to do. Oh, and complaining? Waste of keystrokes. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clef le Tete Also please WP:ERB for how to add citations as many of them lack pertinent info. I updated a couple for you (see footnotes 23 and 29). Also you want to summarize what the reviewers said about his work and I would also suggest removing all interviews as they are generally unhelpful (more reviews, less of everything else). S0091 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 2A02:8084:E81:3600:4995:9729:6FAD:D2DF (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that we have thousands of poor quality articles that should be improved or outright deleted. We're a volunteer project and no one has gotten around to checking them yet. But we don't want to be adding more poor quality articles. Qcne (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Sundrummer

Hello, I want to know if the changes made to this page address the issues brought up by editors. Or are there other changes to be made as well? Thanks so much. Sundrummer (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundrummer Submissiom for review will tell you that. If you have not done so already please do so n9w. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Rahulsinghnagi

Why rejecting again and again Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahulsinghnagi Do not remove previous decline and rejection notices. Your draft has been rejected as you have inappropriately sourced the article. IMdb and Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. Only people who pass the strict WP:NACTRESS criteria may have an article written about them. Qcne (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi I would also like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:No legal threats- your edit summaries could be constituted as legal threats and will lead to your account being blocked. Please note that we are all unpaid volunteers and have no "employee ID". Qcne (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I understand i will remove those links and will not delete previous rejection and notices. Verfiy my id and address proof i am not harming anyone. Please try to understand i removed those because i think that it would be published with article. Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi no one is accusing you of harming anyone, you simply have not properly written a draft that proves notability under our WP:NACTRESS criteria. If you can prove that, then let me know and I will take another look. Qcne (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Qcne,
Added the link of Sony Liv which she have did:
Crime Patrol
Aahat
CID
Mahabaali Hanuman
Tarak Mehta Ka OOlta Chashma Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne You required the screenshot of the episode for proving this i will share. Send your email id or either we mention the episode the number Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahulsinghnagi you still have not proven notability I am afraid. We need to see significant coverage of Neetika in multiple reliable secondary sources. All you've done is linked show watch pages? That's useless for establishing notability. Qcne (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Example of secondary sources ? Rahulsinghnagi (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review, discussion, debate, and analysis of her acting in entertainment magazines and newspapers. Qcne (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:25, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217

Tell us why you are requesting assistance. 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalise Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:36, 14 November 2023 review of submission by EarleofNola

We've tried to add references that we feel meet all the criteria. When looking at competitor pages on wikipedia (Zscaler, force point, Palo Alto Networks, Cato, Rubrik, etc) we feel our submission is much more detailed in references from independent sources and far less brochure like. We can go back and add some additional independent media coverage but we are struggling to understand why competitive companies continue to have pages up (and continue to be updated) that are far more promotional and less referenced. We feel like the standard we are being held too is much higher than that for other companies. EarleofNola (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" please? User accounts are strictly single person use. Also see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EarleofNola See other stuff exists. It's possible these other articles are also inappropriate and their issues are just not addressed yet, and you would be unaware of this. Competitors meriting articles (if they do) does not automatically mean your company does. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:39, 14 November 2023 review of submission by 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217

I am requesting assistance with the 9 infinities, because I am wondering if that will be something real to remember when the time comes. 2601:1C2:1801:49C0:91C1:4E96:FB0:1217 (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please just drop it, okay? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Leoleovich

Hi team, I don't understand why this page keeps getting rejected. There are over 30 different sources including ITU and IEEE. Meta engineering articles (which are ok in different pages). This is a new technology which gathers 500+ people to watch during conferences. I am struggling to see why this is "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Thank you, Oleg. Leoleovich (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Leoleovich first it is unclear what the draft is about. The infobox suggests it is about a product (open sourced or not) invented by Meta but the article seems be, to an extent, about System time in general. Either way, those involved with the development of Time Card are primary sources and not independent so cannot be used to establish notability and should be only be used very sparingly. What you need are wholly independent (not involved), secondary reliable sources that have written in-depth about Time Card (not based on announcements, press releases or what those involved have written or stated, etc.). S0091 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091 thank you for your response.
Let me try to respond to each point:
> those involved with the development of Time Card are primary sources
We understand the importance of the COI declaration which we did. This is indeed discouraged but not a blocking condition.
> The infobox suggests it is about a product (open sourced or not) invented by Meta but the article seems be, to an extent, about System time in general
Happy to rewire article, but I don't think this is the main issue.
> wholly independent (not involved), secondary reliable sources that have written in-depth about Time Card
We linked ITU publication [1] and IEEE publication [2] which are the most trusted standardization bodies in the world requiring careful vetting. Not even mentioning 10s of independent (without [Meta] involvement) articles linked. Did you have a chance to verify these?
As mentioned earlier, happy to restructure the draft, remove youtube references (as we did before with git and source code repos). We don't have any exaggerating statements (best in the world or whatever) and we have no intention to promote Meta with this page (there are enough pages). But we believe this hardware which is used and produced deserves a place on wikipedia.
Thank you. Leoleovich (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? S0091 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> Who is "we"
People who contributed to article so far. It involves people from Meta and Open Compute Project. Leoleovich (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 can I clarify something else? Please guide. Thank you, Oleg. Leoleovich (talk) 11:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what S0091 is saying- you declared your COI, they are talking about the sources used in the draft, which are primary sources. These do not establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes).
Wikipedia isn't about what is "deserving of a place". Wikipedia hosts articles about topics that meet the notability criteria. Many topics are deserving of public attention- that's not relevant here. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leoleovich Neither of the sources contribute to notability. The ITU publication has a clear disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not engage ITU. but your use of the source is fine. The IEEE working group appears to be chaired by a Meta employee based on their profile. If that is correct the draft should state that as it is misleading but the source is fine to use to support the working group exists. In order for a source to contribute to notability it needs to meet all four criteria as outlined in the decline notices: secondary, reliable, independent (the publisher, author(s) and the content within the source) and covers the topic in-depth (follow all those links in the declines and read the material). This may be a case of too soon, meaning sources meeting the notability criteria may not exist today but may in the future. S0091 (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:15, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Dbolwerk rec

My draft page has been rejected twice and I'm looking for a specific reason why? The sources are in-depth (talking about the topic/Dairyland specifically), reliable, not from Dairyland's website. Can someone please specifically explain what the issues still are so I may resolve them? Thank you. Dana Dbolwerk rec (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been declined not rejected, it is stuffed with spam links to your company website and reads like an advertisement, you also need to disclose your paid editing status per the terms and conditions. Theroadislong (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for some more details. Dbolwerk rec (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 14 November 2023 review of submission by Charmetric

What is wrong with it, how do you fix it? Charmetric (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmitted the draft and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

03:02, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Arthistoryxxx

I am an art history student trying to create a wiki page for one of my favorite working artists today. Can I have some help with getting the page approved? Arthistoryxxx (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthistoryxxx I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:"). You resubmitted it and it is pending; once reviewed, the reviewer will leave feedback if it is not accepted. This may take time, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:00, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Zcwajel

Could someone re-review this article/or give me a tips for making this article more neutral? It's been rewritten to be more neutral and I believe is more objective and referenced than many other humanitarian charity articles. Zcwajel (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zcwajel: why would it need to be re-reviewed? You've not made any changes to it since it was declined. Or are you suggesting the reviewer didn't get it right somehow?
Both times this was declined for notability, which is a hard requirement for acceptance. Focus on that. The POV tone etc. is of lesser importance at this stage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks @DoubleGrazing - I'll give it another shot, or see if another editor is willing :) Zcwajel (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zcwajel: if another editor is willing to do what – review it? You will get another review, when you resubmit the draft. Currently, pool is so small, that you won't even have to wait for long. Just make sure you address the reasons for the previous decline, as otherwise it will get declined again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing No I mean another editor (maybe in the humanitarian organisations groups) willing to help edit and improve the article before the next review. Thanks again -- Zcwajel (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zcwajel: oh okay, I understand. Yeah, that's not something we get involved here at the help desk, we tend to leave the editing side to others. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:06, 15 November 2023 review of submission by THATAKGUY

i dont know why i got rejected THATAKGUY (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer. A completely unsourced text with sections redacted(Wikipedia is not censored for any reason) will never be accepted as an article. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@THATAKGUY: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. I don't even know what this SCP-358 is (which in itself tells you that something is wrong with your draft!), but let's assume it's a video game. You can write an encyclopaedic article about a video game, but this isn't it. You may even be able to write an encyclopaedic article about a meme or a hoax, but again this isn't it. And whatever you do, please do not just copypaste content from external sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI @DoubleGrazing SCP is a collaborative creative writing/meme project popular with the kids these days. Deffo not suitable for Wikipedia, but they have their own (very large) Wiki project. Qcne (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naima Cumming Article

Hello! :D

As I expected, my article was deemed unpublishable because of the source was a secondary source which I understand. As her book articles are the only source, may her Amazon book link work or is this not possible anymore. There is a author's look into the book, in the book's description if that may work? I really just want to be able to surprise my friend that as an author and a first book publisher, she has a wikipedia page!

Cheers! Dominicfike123 (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Naima Cumming
@Dominicfike123: you need to demonstrate that the subject meets one of our notability standards, either WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Currently there is nothing in the draft to suggest either of these is the case.
You also need to disclose your conflict of interest. I will post a message on your own talk page User talk:Dominicfike123 with advice on this.
Speaking of your talk page, why does it redirect to the draft talk page Draft talk:Naima Cumming, and why does your user page redirect to the draft? This is quite confusing, and makes it difficult to communicate with you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Never mind, I think those redirects were left behind accidentally when the draft that was in your user page was moved into drafts. I've removed them now, hope that's okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:44, 15 November 2023 review of submission by 118.216.129.2

I added the references that include notability, but the draft is not confirmed. What kind of sources / references Wikipedia is pursuing? Would be great if you suggest some examples for me. 118.216.129.2 (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are the account that has edited the draft(remember to log in when posting)- you've been told what is being looked for by several reviewers, at the top of your draft. We do not want a summary of the activities of the company and what it does- we want a summary of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the company, that go into detail about what they see as important/significant/influential about the company, what we call notability. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to see multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject, entirely of their own volition. This excludes sponsored content, press release regurgitations and other churnalism, routine business reporting (M&A, financial results, appointments, new markets or locations, product launches, etc.), and anything where a representative from the company is commenting or being interviewed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Twinnie3

I don't see how they are deemed as "not sufficiently notable" when they are verified creators on multiple platforms with over 300000 subscribers. Twinnie3 (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinnie3: they could have 300m subscribers, and that wouldn't make them notable, as metrics like that are not notability criteria. We need to see sources that satisfy the WP:GNG standard or one of our special notability guidelines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Tusharunadkat

I need help with submitting my profile, please. Can someone help me? I am new to Wiki and it is a bit overwhelming to gain success. Thank you. Tusharunadkat (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero profiles on Wikipedia, we have articles on notable people, but they are not usually written by the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Ty6r8

my page was rejected for being 'not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia'. according to google, Wikipedia has a net worth of 180 million dollars. There is no reason as to why my very important article can not be included in Wikipedia when other useless articles such as "Weimer township, "Eggcorn etymology", "united states of america". I am fully confident the wikipedia is currently operating a full-scale LIberal, Blue-haired leftist, woke organized crime operation in slovakia. if this article is not accepted, I am reporting wikipedia to the slovakia parliment. -Ebrahim Raisi, President of iran Ty6r8 (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Mixedmdman

New page was declined but sufficient information was not provided as to why as there are plenty of active Wikipedia pages with a whole lot less information and references than was provided in the given article created. This topic is already listed on another Wikipedia page also so that alone shows that they are a notable and noteworthy subject for Wikipedia (Prince George's County Sheriff's Office#Sheriffs) Mixedmdman (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mixedmdman: never mind whether other articles may exist with even worse referencing, or whether the subject is mentioned elsewhere. We need to see that this subject is notable, and that the draft is sufficiently referenced. With all that said, what is your question, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mixedmdman We don't need the whole url when you link to a Wikipedia article. Please see other stuff exists. Wikipedia has many inappropriate articles, for various reasons, that haven't yet been addressed by a volunteer. This cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. That a name is used in an article is not sufficient justification. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to help us address inappropriate articles, please identify any that you see. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 15 November 2023 review of submission by DOHrennie

In the last submission our article was rejected for lack of independent references. We are completely puzzled by this feedback, because we included more references we considered independent. We considered the references independent because the authors are independent of the authors of the software. Is our understanding of independent source correct here? 

DOHrennie (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 15 November 2023 review of submission by Gowser

After the first decline, I added what seem to be reliable independent secondary source references and external links that are focused on the subject: a profile in The American Leader, an interview in Vanity Fair, a Q&A with the Natl Conference of State Legislatures, and a Washingtonian article focused solely on him and his work. Can you help me understand how to further address the concerns? Gowser (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and profiles do not establish notability. Interviews are not an independent source, as it is by definition the person speaking about themselves. Profiles that just list information aren't significant coverage of the subject. 331dot (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thank you. Gowser (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it's possible for someone to take a look at one source. What The American Leader is calling a profile isn't a list of information but a 2000-word examination of the subject's career and work. If that is sufficient on closer examination, I can find others like it. Gowser (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 15 November 2023 review of submission by 2603:300A:23B5:8300:E87C:9AC4:D1E:8099

job application requirement. i went to a paralegal school in columbus georgia in 1990 and i cant find any record of the name of it. thanks 2603:300A:23B5:8300:E87C:9AC4:D1E:8099 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft submission process is not a question and answer forum, you could try the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:45, 16 November 2023 review of submission by TheTechnologyGuru

Hello, I've watched and helped contribute to this page over the last few months or so and though submitted by another wiki user in perhaps somewhat premature form, the article does warrant a page of it's own. Though the given family name of "Discman" is present, that's not really what the system represents at all, if anything, the machine is a multimedia device, comprised of each type of discman from music player, to E-reader. This is mostly due to the systems OS, being part of the CD-I line which is unique in itself and very capable for a portable in the early 90's. See it as almost an early version of what we take for granted today, with phones and tablets.

It might be easy to write off notability for this device, but look deeper and you'll see, it's separate from other machines of the time. I question, if the "Data" Discman has it's own article, why is there no reason for the "Intelligant" Discman to have one?

All I ask is that I can be helped or aided to make this article exist officially on wikipedia and to really give it the writeup it deserves. I'll take the time to find reliable sources that back up it's notability and I've saved a good few articles over the years of research I've dedicated to the device to back it up.

Thank you for reading this and I hope that we can work together to finally publish this article, kind regards, TheTechnologyGuru (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1185333907"