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 Basittali (talk | contribs) at 09:01, 4 December 2023 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Zaeem_Zia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


November 28

00:33, 28 November 2023 review of submission by W. Russell Smith

I am very new to creating pages and want to make sure everything is done correctly and by the book. I created a draft from a document I wrote in Word and then cut and pasted it into wiki. I am not sure how to use citations. It is all so new that it seems impossible! Please help. W. Russell Smith (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W. Russell Smith, although it may seem impossible, it is not, as can be seen by the fact that this encyclopedia currently has 6,751,562 articles, all of which were written by someone at first. I recommend against drafting articles in Word or anywhere else because that prioritizes the prose. The backbone of a Wikipedia article are the references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. The prose simply summarizes that coverage, nothing more and nothing less. Instead, articles should be created in draft space or personal sandboxes, so that they can be developed in the Wikipedia environment, reflecting Wikipedia's specific Policies and guidelines. As for citations, Referencing for beginners explains things. Cullen328 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
W. Russell Smith As Cullen328 indicated, The *structure* of the proposed article isn't that bad, *BUT* the Problem is that County Commissioners in general aren't Notable enough for them to have a Wikipedia page about them. See WP:NPOL for the policy on notability of Politicians.Naraht (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:10, 28 November 2023 review of submission by BootNet

He is a famous Indian Islamic scholar, he should have a Wikipedia article. BootNet (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BootNet, the Neutral point of view is a core content policy that forbids promotional editing of any kind on Wikipedia. You wrote:
Javed Haider Zaidi passionately advocates for Muslim unity, emphasizing the importance of setting aside differences to thwart imperialist agendas. He actively promotes unity and brotherhood between Sunni and Shiite Muslims., referenced to the person's own website.
Non-neutral, promotional writing like this is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move To Main Article Javed Haider Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Citations: The article is backed by credible sources,

I believe this article contributes valuable information to the encyclopedia and will be beneficial to readers seeking knowledge about Javed Haider Zaidi. Thank you for considering this request.

07:51, 28 November 2023 review of submission by AbhissszZ

Why this article was rejected ? AbhissszZ (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AbhissszZ, your deleted draft biography of a living person was entirely unreferenced and was therefore a policy violation. See Verifiability. In addition, your draft contained highly promotional language such as this:
In addition to his thriving professional career in IT, Abhishek Kumar Singh possesses a diverse set of skills that reflect his artistic personality. Beyond the realm of technology, he is an accomplished painter and a skilled flutist, showcasing his creativity and passion for the arts. This unique combination of technical expertise and artistic talents highlights Abhishek's well-rounded and multifaceted personality also a disciple of Shiva.
Promotion of any kind is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. The relevant policy is the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:06, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Hypermole115

Hi there! My name is Adriel and I was wondering if I could get help on my article. I see that my article does not meet the criteria for publishing in the music category as well I need more sources to establish notability. Could I please get some help as I am confused about how my article is not ready to be published. Thank you! Hypermole115 (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown how the band meets the definition of a notable band, nor have you summarized what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band(which usually includes professional reviews of their work). 331dot (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Vikamsinghsurya

Vikram Singh Surya Vikamsinghsurya (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikamsinghsurya You don't ask a question, but your draft(which I fixed the link to) was deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Budoislife

I have tried to submit an article about a significant person in the AIkido world. If I understand the process correctly, it was not accepted due to lack of sourcing. I believe I have exhausted most available sources both on and off line. I wonder if there is something I am missing. Thank you in advance for any help. Budoislife (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Budoislife if you have exhausted all available sources, then he is not notable (by standards on Wikipedia). You can promote Takeshi Kimeda via another outlet, for example social media. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 28 November 2023 review of submission by OffekM

Dear Wikipedia Helpdesk, I am writing about the repeated rejection of my draft article about Professor Ido Kanter, who is a leading physicist in several research areas and whose work is documented in more than 200 publications in leading scientific journals and some are cited hundreds of times in leading scientific journals. After my first rejection I was approached via email by someone who introduced herself as an experienced Wikipedia editor. She offered to edit the article and make sure that it is accepted, for a fee of 380 USD. Having read the scam warning page on Wikipedia, I refused the offer. After addressing the remarks left by the reviewer myself, I submitted the article again and it was rejected again. Since then, I have been rejected several times for various reasons, the remarks given were very vague and rarely addressed particular issues in the article itself. Let me mention three such reasons. (A) “the research does not demonstrate significant notability about them”, papers were published in leading scientific journals including Nature Photonics and Physical Review Letters. (B) “should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources”, “Every single reference except the scienmag.com one is a primary source”. I examined tens of Wikipedia pages of equivalent scientists and almost all contain only their own publications. Nevertheless, following this type of requests I have added mentioning of Kanter’s work in Newsweeks, Sciencemag etc, and when it was rejected again and asked for more such external citations, I added many more. (C) After all these additions the last rejection arrived “for references to show notability. At the moment appears to be a bit of a CV.”. This is a completely new issue which was not previously raised, and is general and does not direct a specific change. In addition, I do not understand what makes this article look like a CV. Every time I addressed the remarks of the reviewer – new remarks were raised. These remarks were unrelated to the previous issues raised about the article. It really looks as though someone is trying to prevent the article from being accepted – presenting new issues that had not been considered problematic previously so as to reject the article again and again. I have a very strong suspicion that this behavior is the result of my rejecting the offer for paid editing services. I hope this issue can be resolved promptly and I wish to receive clear remarks on all outstanding issues such that I can address them properly and have the draft article accepted. Thank you in advance, Yours Sincerely, Offek Marelly OffekM (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OffekM Good that you avoided being scammed. If you still have the email, could you follow the instructions at WP:SCAM to forward it to the email address indicated at the top of that page?
Note that there is a difference between "rejected" and "declined". Your draft was declined, meaning it may be resubmitted. Rejected would mean it could not be resubmitted. That your draft is being declined almost certainly has little to do with you turning down a demand for payment. The scammers who tried to scam you usually impersonate legitimate Wikipedia editors to give themselves legitimacy and(if they fail) get those legitimate editors in trouble.
Be advised that using other articles that themselves may be problematic is not a good idea, as you would be unaware of these problems. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles.
The main issue seems to be that you are describing his research when instead you should be describing how he is notable. If his research makes him notable, that is not being made clear in the article. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers tend to raise only a few issues at a time to overload editors. There are a ridiculous amount of policies and guidelines (see WP:POLICYLIST) and it is hard to learn all of them. Given the number of declines, it is likely you are not notable. Try to demonstrate that you meet either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for academics.
If your only purpose to edit Wikipedia is to promote yourself, then you will probably be blocked as you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to actually contribute, start small. You can begin with 'easy' edits at your homepage.
There are many other ways to promote yourself, such as social media. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sungodtemple, you are replying in terms suggesting that OffekM is the same person as Ido Kanter. DO you have a reason for thinking this? ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to elaborate on Sungodtemple's point, the script used in reviewing drafts only allows 1-2 decline reasons to be chosen at a time. Reviewers are free to choose any reason(s) they wish; they do not have to 'follow suit' with what the previous reviewer may have chosen. So if a draft has, say, half a dozen plausible grounds for declining, it may indeed be declined multiple times for different reason(s), and this does not mean that the reviewers are 'moving the goalposts'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:41, 28 November 2023 review of submission by OhCanuck

How is this subject not notable enough? He is a Welsh international footballer with dozens of international games. Has played for two of the major clubs in england. I am new to this but there is much much less notable players on this site. User:Zoglophie? can you please explain? OhCanuck (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The sources you used are insufficient to establish notability. zoglophie•talk• 14:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read through the rules you mentioned and i find nothing that requires original research. The sources show him siging a professional contract and multiple news sources. Hes also on the roster page for Leicester city! I dont know what more you could possibly need please tell me. OhCanuck (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that give him significant coverage, not that merely describe his activities. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is an example of these sources? You are not being helpful at all right now. I have multiple news sources, club sources, independent source. Do you need a front page espn article? You are both being very difficult with this and are providing no explanations. OhCanuck (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you are probably frustrated, but we really are trying to help you. Your four sources are
  1. his team website, which is not an independent source
  2. a profile from what seems to be a marketing or representation agency, which also is likely not independent
  3. a basic profile, not signficant coverage
  4. a single paragraph about him, not significant coverage
None of these sources establish notability. I see that upon creating your account you immediately dived right in to creating this draft article- which is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia. We usually recommend that new users first gain experience and knowledge by first editing existing articles, to learn about how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Users like you who dive right in to creating articles usually end up frustrated as you are, because they do not understand what is happening to their draft. If you haven't already read Your First Article, I would suggest that you do. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this 331 it was all i was asking for. I wanted to go right into creating pages for my favourite footballers who didn't already have pages. I have an understanding of wikipedia but i did not think this wouldn't meet the requirements.Thank you for your help 331.
Last Question: Why was my page automatically rejected rather than declined? I put alot of work into this and now i cant even edit and resubmit. OhCanuck (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he ever meets guidelines in future, someone will automatically create an article about him. zoglophie•talk• 15:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? Thats what i was trying to do today? OhCanuck (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTS before trying to submit a draft for review. It doesn't matter if he was your "Favourite" or not, we don't accept pages if they fail to meet these guidelines. Your best course of action is to wait until he is notable enough. zoglophie•talk• 15:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? I have questions about my sources not because he was my "favorite". You have been nothing but difficult with me this whole time zoglophie and i dont understand why.
I will be filing a complaint to the administrators about your conduct and lack of professionalism. 331 has been fantastic and explained things in detail while you resort to side eyed remarks. Please reconsider how you talk to people on this platform. OhCanuck (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You also still haven't answered my question of "How?" an article will be auto generated. OhCanuck (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Auto generated" only means that when it is obvious that he meets the criteria and there is sufficient coverage of him, someone like you will eventually write about him.
I'm an administrator, and I see no issues with how zoglophie addressed you. We try to be direct here, which can sometimes come off as blunt. Also, we try to start with broad information and work our way up to details, not start with details as we are volunteers and are first trying to steer you to find the information yourself. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you 331 but i cannot hide my disappointment. Just for the future, this is not how you get new people excited about becoming editors. I am very very saddened OhCanuck (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest that you start smaller. Many tens of thousands of editors are highly successful and impactful without creating a single article. We have millions of articles, many of which are in poor condition and need help. Many of these are probably about athletes. If you start smaller, making edits to existing articles, you can build on that for the future. 331dot (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noted d(⌒ー⌒) OhCanuck (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OhCanuck I recommend Special:Homepage - you can filter to articles that need copyediting or the like, and also by subject, in your example sports. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 17:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OhCanuck, I'm afraid you are in the position (like hundreds of others) of somebody who buys a musical instrument, and immediately takes it out busking. It's a laudable goal, but it takes practice to get there, and trying it before you're ready is likely to get uncomfortable feedback which may not be readily comprehensible.
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. This means that nothing originating from the player or his club or associates can contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tldr OhCanuck (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:13, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Htet Yadanar Lwin

Can you give me a specific reason why my article cannot be published? And I also have one question which is 'Can we publish the article with the same topic which was already on wikipedia but with different information?'. 

Htet Yadanar Lwin (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Htet Yadanar Lwin: Wikipedia can't have two articles on the same topic. Please edit the existing Mala xiang guo article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:16, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Robin Safar

Hi team wikipedia! I've been attempting to set up a wikipedia page on regards to the professional boxer Robin Safar. I've never done this before, and I keep getting my submission rejected. I'm not quite sure what I've done wrong but I have on multiple occasions tried to make the text more neutral in it's tone, I've included more sources and yet it keeps getting rejected.

I would appreciate any help I can get as i'd like to get this thing up and running.

Sincerely Robin Safar (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, currently meaning that it will not ever be accepted. If you object to that, your best bet is to contact the person who rejected it, but don't hold your breath over it. Mach61 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Autistic Hyperfixation

I may be incorrect in my assumption that I submitted this translated article correctly, however (to my knowledge) in translating an article from Russian (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampo_L-41) that was poorly sourced into English (My draft), my translation was not deem adequate by reviewer Theroadislong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Theroadislong).

How do I proceed from here? Autistic Hyperfixation (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic Hyperfixation you may have assumed that because there is an article on the Russian Wikipedia the topic automatically qualifies for an article on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately this is not true, as different language Wikipedias are entirely separate projects and have their own standards. So you have to show that the article meets notability guidelines. See that page for details. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see! Thank you for the information! I'll try to find sources to back up my article then, have a great day! Autistic Hyperfixation (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:58, 28 November 2023 review of submission by Mahir bin Raees

Hell me what is a problem to create my page ? Mahir bin Raees (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

01:14, 29 November 2023 review of submission by HodgeBrad

This was rejected by the script, but I think that the sources cited are verifiable enough. I have the New York Times, the Washington Post, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter as well as others listed as sources, and he is notable enough to have a page. Please reconsider. Thank you! HodgeBrad (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluate each of your sources against the WP:Golden rule. Only those that pass it are capable of contributing to establishing notability. I can see straight away that several of your sources don't (eg 1,3,4,5,10,11). ColinFine (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:32, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Greshthegreat

My draft was declined back on November 1, 2023 because, as user KylieTastic who reviewed it said, the "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..."

Piper Rubio is definitely noteable though, yet I am having a hard time finding any articles to cite that primarily are about her, that make more than a passing mention of her.

She currently has 128k followers on her instagram account (which is run by one of her parents), and when I searched for Piper Rubio on TikTok, all the videos that come up collectively have 98.3 million views, several which themselves have over 1 million views. She also starred in her first major movie this year, Five Night's at Freddy's. That all in my opinion, among a few other things, shows that she is definitely very notable and popular.

Could I get some help finding some articles primarily or exclusively about Piper Rubio too cite? Thanks in advance to anyone who replies. Greshthegreat (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of followers has zero affect on notability here, what we need are independnent sources that discuss her in-depth, Instagram is not a reliable source either. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware of that. That is why I am asking for some help getting independent sources that talk about Piper Rubio beyond a passing mention.
I only mentioned her Instagram followers, how lots of videos featuring her on TikTok have gotten many millions of views and that she was in a major movie, Five Night's at Freddys to point out that she is noteable. Also with all that in mind, surely there are some sources that discuss her at length. I am just having a hard time finding those sources. It is also possible somehow no such sources exist yet, which would be suprising given that she is somewhat famous. Greshthegreat (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rubio may indeed be notable in the usual sense of the word, but unless you can find suitable sources, she is by definition not notable in the way that Wikipedia uses the word.
I don't think you're likely to get much help in finding sources from people on this page: you're the one who wants to write an article on her, so you're the one with the motive to look for sources. (I may be wrong, of course: somebody may choose to look. I'm not interested in doing so myself). It's possible that if you ask on WT:FILMBIO somebody may be interested. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:38, 29 November 2023 review of submission by 49.181.236.195

I was trying to make a wiki page for my father showcasing his accomplishments and achieving such a high rank in the military can you please advise the information needed to validate and have the page upload. 49.181.236.195 (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not recommended to write an article about your father, as that would be a conflict of interest and it will be hard to stay neutral. Practically only thing that matters for accept or decline is whether he is notable. Read that guideline for details. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 29 November 2023 review of submission by NAMAN.GAUBA007

for editing what all things need to be change in this draft NAMAN.GAUBA007 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you need to do is to turn your floating list of sources into inline references, so that it is apparent where every single piece of information in the article is sourced to.
When you have done that, you can resubmit it, and it will be practical for a reviewer to look at it and see whether or not he seems to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. But it will be helpful if you look critically at your sources to check that before you resubmit. ColinFine (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Good parents

Why this article has declined? Good parents (talk) 10:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good parents I fixed the link to your draft(it lacked the "Draft:") but it was a copyright violation. A Wikipedia article should not just be copied from elsewhere, it should summarize independent sources. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:35, 29 November 2023 review of submission by 116.212.108.22

why it is restricted ?? 116.212.108.22 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for rejection was given. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the rejection notice in the draft. Removing it was disruptive editing.
Please read WP:YFA. The very first step in creating a Wikipedia article is to find several reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject. From that you will know whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The "sources" you list are worthless: the first one is merely a name: I don't even know what it is, never mind where to find it. The second is clearly not independent, and so is worthless for establishing notability.
The fact that the draft has been rejected suggests that the reviewer Zoglophie has looked for, and failed to find, suitable sources, and has therefore concluded that there is no point on you or anybody else spending any time on this.
If you are sure that you have several suitable sources, you can take it up with the reviewer on their user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for accepting non-notable autobiographies constitute highest portion of total Afc. This was just another example of it. zoglophie•talk• 17:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Semigall

Hello. I don't understand why article about architect and urban planner Arnold Baron von Maydell is declined and considered not enough significant? There are several articles about similiar latvian architects which are published despite their short length and poor quality. Semigall (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semigall a common misconception is that since other crappy articles exist, my crappy article is acceptable. Practically the only thing that matters is notability, or whether enough reliable sources have significant coverage about von Maydell. Try to find other high-quality sources about him. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semigall If you would like to help us reduce the number of inappropriate articles, you may work with us to idenfity these other inappropriate articles for possible action. We can only address what we know about. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 29 November 2023 review of submission by 87.1.48.40

I ask for the page to be unblocked Draft:Gaetano Minale 87.1.48.40 (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for block evasion. 331dot (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:49, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Lummoxxxx

How I can improve my work on this article Lummoxxxx (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:10, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Metalbro

I would like some help with the citation side of this page Metalbro (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect do you need help with? 331dot (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Lilly0010

Why has my article been declined Lilly0010 (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lilly0010 because it is not an encyclopedic article but an essay or as you put it a report. Social media or a blog are the types of place for you to write about such things. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Secretsauce99

Hey, I thought this article would be deemed notable given that it pertains to an existing Wikipedia page Pitchblack Playback and is about the founder of this event? I'm sure in the past this would have qualified someone for their own page? An event is notable but the person who created it is not? I don't quite understand the logic, even if I understand that the editor who has rejected this may not deem the person notable solely based on the citations added to the new article..

Thanks Secretsauce99 (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the founder of something notable is not necessarily notable themselves, see WP:NOTINHERITED. It would depend on coverage in independent reliable sources being about them personally and not just what they did- and they would probably need to be notable for something in addition to creating a particular event in order to merit a standalone article. Most of the sources you provide discuss the importance of the event, not its creator. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Sidharthsnair

I have updated my page with more references and i need advice to make it to the approval team. Sidharthsnair (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, you must first appeal to the last reviewer(the one who rejected the draft).
As you are associated with this topic, that must be formally disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at the draft it appears that the sources provided are wholly inappropriate for establishing notability as Wikipedia defines a notable film. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Javert13

I'd love getting some help optimizing the page I'm trying to create so that it is eligible for publishing. My overall goal is to publish pages for more noteable parishes within the American Byzantine Catholic Church, and if I get good at that, figure out what else to grow next. Some of them already have wikipedia pages, and I'm attempting to add more in the same style as the previously published verisons. As far as I could tell, I used multiple sources to validate all of the information, and didn't just copy or paste from any one source (it was actually interesting to see a complete story synthesize from across the different sources).

Any advise as to how I could modify the page to be eligible, and what I could learn for future pages to avoid this?

Thank you!!! I use wikipedia enough, figured it was time to help it grow. Javert13 (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources have brief coverage, or are not independent of the parish. An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you. I think I was more focusing on sources that verified or illustrated facts, and not so much looking at the breadth or quality of the actual sources. The quality of the sources seems kind of fuzzy, is there a helpful rule of thumb I could use when looking?
Is using the parish as a source useful at all, or does it draw a red flag right away? I find it useful as a starting point to then go and verify with independent sources elsewhere, but is that not a good approach?
Thank you for the quick feedback, super helpful already. Javert13 (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may read reliable sources to learn more about what is considered a reliable source, but in short, a source is considered reliable if it has a reputation of fact checking, editorial control, and basic journalistic or academic standards of process- they don't just publish anything they like without checking for accuracy, like a blog or self-published book.
The parish itself as a primary source, can be used as a source for certain things, but not to establish notability or claims beyond basic information like location, number of members, staff, etc. The history of the parish in general would need an independent source. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, incredibly helpful. Thank you! Javert13 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Bperu

Just wanted to get an update on my last submission of this article about 2 months ago.

I've made all the edits suggested by everyone who has reviewed it so far, and am curious to know if it now has all the elements necessary for it to be published.

Thanks! Bperu (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually do pre-review reviews- but the external links in the body of your draft need to be removed. Please see Referencing for beginners if you intend them as references- but your own newspaper can't be used as a reference to establish the notability of your newspaper. It's a primary source. An article needs to primarily summarize what independent reliable sources say about the paper.
References need to be in line, not just gathered at the bottom, so we know which references cite what information. Again, please see referencing for beginners. 331dot (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to make a formal conflict of interest disclosure, or if you work for the paper, a paid editing disclosure, a Terms of Use requirement. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Klevis Elmazaj

Dear Team at Wikipedia, I received your latest refusal because of 'Autobiography on promotional tone'.

I believe if you compare this page to others of similar artists who are listed on wikipedia, it follows the same guidelines and content. This is not intended for promotional purposes, but mostly for informative purposes, where people can read and know more about the person or artist they encountered. It can be easy to say for every page that it has a promotional tone, unless of course someone else writes for them which can also be an agent, doing it for promotional tone.

Could you help me understand and guide through what I would need to do in order to have this page accepted?

Thank you for you understanding,

Warm regards, Klevis Klevis Elmazaj (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF - Do not try to use the existence of other articles to argue the validity of yours. It's also not cited properly, you need in-line citations, not all of them gathered at the bottom, please read WP:REFB - RichT|C|E-Mail 20:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 29 November 2023 review of submission by VictoireIsdor

Can you help me to not be rejected VictoireIsdor (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no; you do not meet our definition of a notable musician, and your draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:21, 29 November 2023 review of submission by Iulia pantea

Hello,

Can you please advise me about the modifications I must make to the Wikipedia page for Daniel Epure in order for it to be approved?

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Kind regards, 

Iulia pantea (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Iulia pantea: thanks for reaching out. Did you see the note on the draft? Wikipedia subjects need in-depth coverage (full-length articles, not just passing mentions) in usually at least 3 reliable sources that are not written by or affiliated with the subject.
~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


November 30

01:03, 30 November 2023 review of submission by 62.4.56.214

How to edit page to be published on Wikipedia 62.4.56.214 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link to your draft. Publishing will not be possible, it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:10, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Yilmaz1001

I'm not sure how I can improve my sourcing. I've cited academic textbooks used to teach the concept in college courses, and the only additional things to cite that I can find online cite the same sources I'm citing or have nothing new to contribute to the article, which I don't feel adds a lot. Yilmaz1001 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yilmaz1001, I ask this out of complete ignorance: is this closely enough related to Income–consumption curve that it can be covered there? For some reason this article is coming up when I google search for "Price-consumption curve". -- asilvering (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The income consumption curve describes the set of optimal bundles as income grows, without any change to prices. The price consumption curve describes how the set of optimal bundles changes as the price of one good changes. It is the sum total of the Substitution effect and the income effect. If this topic were to be covered in a different article, it would best be done so either in the Slutsky equation (which is basically the mathematical equivalent of this graphical phenomenon, it also describes the sum total of the substitution and income effects) article or the general Consumer choice article. After reading the consumer choice article (and correcting a typo therein), the "Effect of a price change" section does not explicitly mention the price-consumption curve, but it does include a graphic that derives a demand curve from a few consumer bundles in exactly the same way that one would derive a demand curve from a price-consumption curve (compare to the graphicincluded in the Spanish Wikipedia article that I wrote on the topic) (which, again, is the set of consumer bundles for many different prices of one of the goods). Perhaps some minor changes could be made there, or perhaps this article could be linked to from that section in order to provide more information. Yilmaz1001 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yilmaz1001 ok, I'm going to go ahead and accept this article in that case - aside from the confusing result I asked you about, a google search for the topic makes it very clear that this topic is covered by dozens if not hundreds of sources, and I do not believe that an article on the topic could possibly be deleted for lack of notability. That's the bar we're trying to clear here at AfC. Because it's such a short article, you may find that other editors will want to move the content somewhere else, but any discussion like that can be handled in mainspace. It would be very helpful if you could make some links from various related articles to this one. Thanks for writing the article! -- asilvering (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:05, 30 November 2023 review of submission by LinnLaughLove

Hi there! I'm trying to publish a page about a Cancer Awareness Month that my organization is developing. I'm confused as to why the page has been denied publication twice, so I was hoping you could help me with it. Thank you! LinnLaughLove (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LinnLaughLove, if your org is only now developing this event, there is no chance whatsoever that it is appropriate for it to have a wikipedia article. Please see WP:N. -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that what you are doing is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion (which in Wikipedia terms applies to charities and non-profits as well as to commercial enterprises). Promotion is forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:43, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Ahmed12322

Tell me my mistake bcz i am new here and i will try to edit with your terms and policy thanks Ahmed12322 (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed12322, your draft is entirely unreferenced, which violates the core content policy Verifiability. It is also written in the style of a personal essay instead of an encyclopedia article. There are many websites that would accept your opinions. Wikipedia is not among them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ahmed12322. Like most of the people posting on this page, you have started your Wikipedia journey by plunging straight into the most challenging task there is. This is like buying a musical instrument you've never played, and immediately giving a public concert.
I always advise new editors to spend several weeks or months learning how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million articles before they try this: see the community portal for some suggested tasks. ColinFine (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft also has aspects of a How to guide, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. We neutrally describe topics. We do not instruct our readers how to do various things. Cullen328 (talk)

07:41, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Nuresiya

Karena saya membutuhkannya untuk tugas akhir kuliah Nuresiya (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nuresiya: as already pointed out, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we can only accept content, and communicate, in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Owen Hwo

Can you provide me with a Wikipedia officially recognized format and organizational specifications? Owen Hwo (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owen Hwo: I assume you refer to the comments in your declined draft  Courtesy link: Draft:Costway? The formatting, organisation, etc. guidelines are provided in the Manual of style.
While you're here: what is your relationship to this organisation? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 30 November 2023 review of submission by 117.235.202.61

this ia an organisation i am work here why it's page reject. 117.235.202.61 (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. If you work for the organization, you are required by the Terms of Use to declare that, see WP:PAID.
The draft was rejected and will not be considered further because it does nothing other than describe the existence of the company. Wikipedia articles do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 30 November 2023 review of submission by RedTSports

My draft got declined yesterday and this was the feedback:

All other considerations apart this needs a careful look. It is meant to be a generic article abut the awards, so why is there a 2024 intro about that venue? Please work on what you want to wrote about before resubmitting. Once you do that we can give it a competent review

I'm not clear on what this is referring to? Do i simply need to remove mentions of 2024 awards as it's not taken place yet? I would really like this to be approved so please let me know what specifically i can do RedTSports (talk) 10:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you writing about the awards in general (like Nobel Peace Prize) or specifically about the 2024 awarding of the awards?(like 2023 Nobel Peace Prize)? Either way, you will need independent reliable sources that are unaffiliated with the ISU or the IOC/Olympics to summarize. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Broccolirun

I'm currently editing the artist's wiki page. but the feedback so far is that it's missing the references from magazines/books. but this artist is missing this published, and it's not searchable on the web, so can I add more information about his exhibition histories to solve this problem? Broccolirun (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online, but they do have to have been reliably published. Exhibition catalogues may assist for factual information like dates (see primary sources) but they will not contribute to notability.
The non-negotiable bottom line is that to make an article on Liu you need to find several places where people who have no connection whatever with him, and have not been prompted by him or his associates, have chosen to write about him (not just his exhibitions) in some depth, and been published somewhere reliable. ColinFine (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 30 November 2023 review of submission by NatalieW123

Hi! What type of sources do I need to use for this article for them to be considered reliable? NatalieW123 (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NatalieW123: TBH, the two sources seem quite reliable; I think the issue may be rather that the citations aren't quite enough to support the contents. But the bigger problem (IMO) is that with both sources being close primary ones, they don't contribute to notability per WP:GNG, which requires independent secondary sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NatalieW123 please see WP:RS. I'm not sure why you were given that decline message, since you don't have unreliable sources. What you do need to show is notability. See WP:NPROF or WP:GNG for criteria. -- asilvering (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Osiris1634

How would me being on wikipedia hurt anybody? I mean come on Osiris1634 (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Osiris1634: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social media or blogging platform, and not a place to tell the world about yourself. This draft has been rejected; please leave it at that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:27, 30 November 2023 review of submission by Snofel

Hey, I was wondering if you could help me write an bio for this artist. I really like his music and I think he should finally recive a wkipedia page. Snofel (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles, not pages. This isn't the place to request co-authors for an article- you could try the musician WikiProject. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to have independent reliable sources that show this musician meets the special definition of a notable musician. Your draft was entirely promotional and poorly sourced, and was deleted. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 1

00:23, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 144.74.136.34

i reviewed a number of brief biographies to model this one. I'm not sure what references are missing. I removed anything that could sound like an opinion and limited this to verifiable facts and many references to peer-reviewed journals. The one thing more i could do would be to include website references such as to NIH reporter for grants or the Rush website for employment. But others have not done so. thanks 

144.74.136.34 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what others have or haven't done; what matters is whether this draft complies with core policies and guidelines, and is therefore acceptable in its own right.
The decline was done, correctly, on the basis of insufficient citations to support the contents: in articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. This draft has entire paragraphs without a single citation, and further ones with only one or two cites.
The draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, but it is almost certainly going to be declined again, unless you improve on the referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If you are User:Bennett DA, please remember to log into your account when editing.
PPS: If you are the subject of this draft, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 116.73.99.123

please accept my wikipedia 116.73.99.123 (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted a blank page two times. Ca talk to me! 04:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:33, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 116.73.99.123

This is big function and big group 116.73.99.123 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start multiple threads on the same topic, if you have further questions (which this isn't) just add them to the earlier thread. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:08, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer

Hello,

I am trying to publish ACE Money Transfer's Wikipedia article, but the article has been declined multiple times due to resources. I have updated the resources as per the provided guidelines, where no promotional or commercial resource is used.

Additionally, it's important to highlight that ACE Money Transfer is a remittance company offering digital money transfer solutions to expats worldwide. So, its resources are found only on relevant financial and fintech websites.

Please advise why our article is being declined everytime only due to the resources. We need to get our company's article published on Wikipedia ASAP.

Looking forward to your spontaneous response!

Regards! Aftab Ashraf ACE Money Transfer Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer Wikipedia has zero interest in the needs of your company or in aiding efforts by your company to tell the world about its offerings.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is we do here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, it is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely describing the offerings of the company or its activities, and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. None of the sources you provide seem to be the significant coverage required. I think that you are too close to your company to be able to write about it as Wikipedia requires. Please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors at your company read it too.
The awards/recognition you mention is absolutely meaningless in terms of notability, especially being from niche publications. Only awards that themselves have articles contribute to notability(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am positively seeking your help and guidance to understand and proceed the way Wikipedia requires. Please check the following, which have even far more promotional and commercial resources than ours:
Remitly
Wise (company)
Ria Money Transfer
MoneyGram
These are just a few examples. If they all qualify, why can't we? Please help and guide us through the process. Aftab Ashraf at ACE Money Transfer (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read other stuff exists- that other articles exist does not mean that they meet requirements. As this is a volunteer project, it is possible for inapprpriate content to get by us, this does not mean more inappropriate content can be added. We can only address the inappropriate content we are made aware of. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.
Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This is not a database of companies where mere existence warrants inclusion. We have criteria(WP:ORG). The vast majority of companies do not merit articles; many articles that exist likely should not. Again, please read WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What are the three (and only three, please) absolute best independent sources that provide significant coverage of your company? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Drnoble

Hi, my submission about the proposed Morlais tidal power project was rejected with a possibly TOOSOON stating there was no independent coverage. I have updated the article a bit, referencing BBC News and an Observer article, plus I had already listed other industry new sources. I don't think it is too soon to have a page on this, as the project has been in development for a decade and construction ongoing for over a year. Plus contracts were awarded for electricity generation at the site in the last 2 annual UK auctions, as I have listed. I would appreciate any guidance on what else, or how much more, should be added to the page to make it suitable for publishing on Wikipedia. Thanks, Donald 

Drnoble (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drnoble: TOOSOON usually just means that there don't appear to be enough independent and reliable secondary sources to base an article on, something that can be expected to be resolved with the passage of time. If you can cite sufficient sources meeting WP:GNG already now, then that will negate the TOOSOON argument. (There is also a related point, that Wikipedia is not WP:CRYSTALBALL, but that boils down mainly to how likely this development is to go ahead.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Construction of the project has started, so I don't think it is too much crystal ball gazing, but will bear that in mind for other potential projects. I will try and add some more to the article and resubmit. Drnoble (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Abm1994

I tried to edit it and include references with wikidata . Abm1994 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abm1994: okay, but that's not a question – do you have one in mind you would like to ask?
In any case, this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. If you have new evidence of notability which wasn't considered previously, you should make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW it was rejected two years ago. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, good spot! I thought it was three months ago, but you're right, it was two years and three months. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 1 December 2023 review of submission by SPAAAAACE

My submission was recently declined because its sources did not show significant coverage, and I was wondering if it was necessary to find more sources that entirely focus on Virtual Radar Server. I've been able to find many sources that mention VRS as being used for the given task, but there are very few third-party ones that solely focus on it. Would it be enough for me to show that VRS is technically significant because it's pretty much the only FOSS real-time ADS-B plotter?

Thanks, SPA5CE🕴 ./talk 14:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPAAAAACE: unfortunately "technical significance" and attributes of that ilk are not notability criteria in what comes to inclusion in Wikipedia; you will need to be able to cite independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the subject (which doesn't mean that they must focus solely on it, but they do need to cover it more extensively than merely mentioning it in passing). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Okay. Thanks for your help. There aren't any other good sources, so I guess VRS isn't really notable. I found a couple of scientific articles that say they used Virtual Radar, but it's, again, only in passing. SPA5CE🕴 ./talk 19:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 1 December 2023 review of submission by 172.110.60.34

What can I fix about my article to get it approved? 172.110.60.34 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles should summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject, and then each of those sources should be cited against the information it has provided. This draft cites a single source, only twice, which is nowhere near enough to establish the subject's notability or even to verify the contents.
If I'm honest, there also doesn't seem to be anything in there that would make this person noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopaedia. Wikipedia doesn't merely catalogue people or things because they exist; there must be some reason that justifies their inclusion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Clamar4409

I want to delete what is in my sandbox to try again but when I tried it gave me a response as though I had been acting like a bot. Please, someone give me a good link on doing so. I keep looking for any synonym of "Delete" and am finding nothing in the editor area. When I tried just deleting the text and saving it clean, I get the warning that I am now being limited. Need help. Please Clamar4409 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clamar4409 Do you want to just clear your sandbox to write something else, or do you want your sandbox removed? To do the former, you need only to remove what is there currently in an edit. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. That is what I tried and got the response saying that I had been limited Will try again.
I am determined to finally figure out Wikipedia submission, but still sucking here Clamar4409 (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. It worked this time. Thank you Clamar4409 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Would you please review the sandbox now? I want to know if this is an acceptable submission. It's simple and not meaty, but has all the details.
I'm trying to start smaller since my original attempts were too grandiose. Clamar4409 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the submission information, I'm not presently able to look at it. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Sylvan1971

Hello - I have been working on this article for 18 months, each draft an attempt to address editors' comments. Most recently, after many drafts and improved citations, editor User:S0091 acknowledged notability on my talk page and asked that I remove unverifiable information, which I think I have now done. How do I re-submit for consideration? Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Seekrait

I have been trying to write an article by James Wolcott of Maumee, Ohio. Apparently, I made a second page. How do I publish the right one that I want to publish. Seekrait (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seekrait it seems the duplication is sorted now and the draft is pending review. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Aceomrelliug

A good chunk of the costume photos are taken by me or someone that I know, how would I cite them in that case? I also wonder what other parts of the article draft need to be referenced. Current references cover a big chunk of the article especially in the History section.Aceomrelliug (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aceomrelliug All the content needs to be referenced to a reliable source and Twitter, Instragram, etc. are not reliable sources. For the images, you need be sure you are not violating copyrights, which is a legal issue for both you and Wikipedia as the host. You cannot just use illustrations/photos from another person/entity created and published somewhere (which includes social media) unless it is compliant with CC-BY-SA. Generally, you can only use the photos you personally took. S0091 (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:38, 1 December 2023 review of submission by BananaSlug

Thank you for the quick review of Draft:PLEXUS West Coast Women’s Press. It was declined with the comment:

“There are a lot of sources here, but none of them seem to coverage this newspaper with in depth coverage, which is what is needed for a wikipedia article. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)”

Yet the references include:

(1) an article solely about PLEXUS in the Oakland Tribune, a newspaper of record in the San Francisco Bay Area (second in importance at the time only to two papers published in San Francisco).

(2) an article solely about PLEXUS in the Berkeley Barb an influential and widely read underground newspaper of the 1960s-1970s.

(3) discussion of PLEXUS in Brownmiller’s book “In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution” (which itself was reviewed by the New York Times, as referenced in the draft article).

Finally, the entire publication history of PLEXUS was deemed worthy of inclusion in several academic and public libraries (on microfilm) and a fully digitized version is included in a modern commercial online historical reference service called "Gale's Archives of Sexuality and Gender" (www.gale.com).

I would appreciate more detail about why these sources do not meet the requirement of “multiple published sources that are: in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.”

— BananaSlug (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BananaSlug interviews, writings or publications with those involved are not independent sources so cannot be used to establish notability and blogs, social media, etc. are not reliable sources so should not be used. The Oakland Tribune article is solid but multiple sources meeting the sourcing criteria are needed. It does seem such sources should exist though. Note, it was declined, not a rejected, which means you can make improvements and resubmit it for another review. You might also want to post a note at WT:Women in Red for guidance/assistance. S0091 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will follow up on your suggestions. BananaSlug (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 1 December 2023 review of submission by Englotism

Hello my draft got declined even though I have tried my best to follow all rules, can somebody please help me and tell me exactly what I should change in order for it to get approved? Thank you in advance! Englotism (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Charlotte Austin
EnglotismRead the comments the declining reviewer gave you. Are you confused about those? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


December 2

02:11, 2 December 2023 review of submission by Gorkem80

The draft is not accepted, however, the criteria for High Schools mostly state that it is sufficient for the high school to exist and to be a real high school. There are a high number of mentions in the Turkish national media (Milliyet, Hurriyet: which are equivalents of The New York Times and Washington Post in Turkey.) Even if these are just passing mentions about the successes of the school's students, it should be sufficient for a high school. Am I interpreting the criteria incorrectly? Update: I realized the "reliable proof of existence is sufficient" criteria for High Schools has been abandoned since 2017. But still, there are tons of High School articles on Wikipedia with a much weaker demonstration of notability. There is a guideline discouraging editors from nominating them for deletion, keeping in mind that it is likely that there are other sources not readily available online. Should the same criteria not be applied here, for this particular high school? The achievement examples are just a small subset of national news coverage that I could find available online. Gorkem80 (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gorkem80 see WP:OTHERSTUFF about the existence of the other articles. You are correct there are other poor articles that were created before the change in notability criteria so may not meet the criteria as it stands today and likely should be deleted. The criteria as it stands for public schools is WP:GNG. If there are sources that meet the criteria, then cite them. Stating "they must exist" is not enough. I see you have resubmitted the draft so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:33, 2 December 2023 review of submission by Lisaasills

How do I cite myself (Lisa Sills) as the inventor of the word "finagle"? Lisaasills (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:40, 2 December 2023


Can you please redirect the 2027 NFL season article for me please i would accept it 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

04:13, 2 December 2023 review of submission by 114.178.137.10

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia >> Please tell us the reason of 'not sufficiently notable', because Dr Sakakibara's work contributed significantly to neurological patients with bladder and bowel dysfunction (previously underestimated field, Neurourology and Neurogastroenterology), while descriptive tone was neutral. (reference: 'Prokar Dasgupta', medical doctor, wikipedia page.) 114.178.137.10 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, taking a brief look it several of the sources are his own publications which are primary and not independent so not use (not to mention many if not all are already in the Publications section). I suggest removing all of those. Other sources make no mention of him so not useful and again should not be used so remove all of those. Given the draft is rejected, your recourse is to reach out the editor who rejected the draft. S0091 (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:28, 2 December 2023 review of submission by Jacob Laco

How can I make a better article? Jacob Laco (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article will not be accepted into Wikipedia because it has been rejected. If you wish for more general advice as to how to write, see WP:Your first article and WP:Writing better articles Mach61 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 2 December 2023 review of submission by 2409:4062:2D9F:75CB:3338:930:EBCD:CBC2

Srushti Deshmukh is a popular IAS who became IAS by fixing the All Over India fifth Rank in UPSC Exam 2018 in her 1st attempt. She is also very famous on social media handles such as YouTube, and Instagram, and has more than one million followers on her Instagram handle, her duty and wedding videos are usually viral on social media handles.

Srishti Deshmukh, who became an IAS in her 1st UPSC attempt, was born on 28 March 1995 in Kasturba Nagar, Bhopal, MP, and is mostly popular for securing fifth rank in the UPSC exam 2018. Aside from this, videos of her duty usually go viral on YouTube and Instagram reels, due to which She has got more popularity. IAS Srishti Deshmukh finished her primary education at Carmel Convent School, BHEL, Bhopal, and Later, She begin engineering studies at Laxmi Narayan Engineering College after Middle, and from the last semester of engineering, he begin preparations for UPSC.2409:4062:2D9F:75CB:3338:930:EBCD:CBC2 (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please do not create more such content, as this is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 2 December 2023 review of submission by 2409:4062:2D9F:75CB:7166:E13F:3C10:5DBB

Satyanarayan Maharana's real name is Laxmi Narayan Maharana. By mistake, news have written his brother, that is why I request you to publish this page and people will know that his real name is Laxmi Narayan Maharana. 2409:4062:2D9F:75CB:7166:E13F:3C10:5DBB (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected as non-notable, and will therefore not be considered further.
Wikipedia is not here to correct information erroneously published by third parties; if you wish for such misinformation to be corrected, your best bet would no doubt be to approach those media outlets which have made the error. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:17, 2 December 2023 review of submission by Amir Hossein Palizdar

hi, could you provide me with why you diclined my article? 

Amir Hossein Palizdar (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amir Hossein Palizdar: I had to reject it in the end, since you kept resubmitting it, although it had been pointed out twice already that we can only accept English-language content here on the English-language Wikipedia, and this draft self-evidently is not in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 2 December 2023 review of submission by Rahatul Islam official

Mohammad Rahatul Islam Rahatul Islam official (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahatul Islam official: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform to tell the world about yourself. Try some sort of social media or blogging site instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 2 December 2023 review of submission by HfxCJP

I am starting to get a bit confused. I was told to look at other notable wiki pages for people that are on here.. and I am posting the same amount of info... is it the format I am putting the info in? here is the example I went from : Devyn Nekoda

Please help if you have the time...

HfxCJP (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HfxCJP it appears he has had minor roles, not starring or lead support roles. In order to meet the notability guidelines, you need to show he has had significant roles in notable works or there has been significant coverage about him. Neither is met. Also, most of the awards are minor so I suggest trimming that down to the major awards he personally has won. This is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON where he does not meet the notability guidelines now but may very well at some point in the future. S0091 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gotcha.. thank you very much! Have a great day. HfxCJP (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HfxCJP, your draft claims that one of his most notable roles is on the TV showl Mr. D, and yet the Wikipefia article about that show does not mention him. That is incongruous and likely to generate scrutiny from reviewers. Cullen328 (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 2 December 2023 review of submission by Rana wikibio

Now what can i do Plesse said me Rana wikibio (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rana wikibio: nothing doing, this draft has been rejected. Also, do not remove the AfC templates, please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not remove your opinion in the discussion but I request you to review again. You see all the sources given there are news sources. Wikipedia needs a more reliable source though. But the sources that are given there are not unsafe at all. Hope you will help this little brother to keep my draft alive by re-reviewing Rana wikibio (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "do not remove the AfC templates" do you struggle with? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:29, 2 December 2023 review of submission by 98.186.55.18

Can you Please put a redirect on the 2027 NFL season article please i would accept it 98.186.55.18 (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, see WP:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories for requesting a new redirect. S0091 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to my calendar, it is still 2023. Why would any editor spend time working on an annual event that will probably take place in 2027, but the world could also be destroyed in the interim? Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:22, 2 December 2023 review of submission by IcosaMarty343

i cannot find any reliable sources for the content IcosaMarty343 (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IcosaMarty343: It's probably not notable then, unfortunately. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IcosaMarty343 Articles need reliable sources in order to exist. You may want to touch base over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics for ideas of sources that might include it. (I have a degree in Mathematics, and all of the Math looks like, you just need to how that this isn't your creation, that it is what *others* have called it)Naraht (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

05:18, 3 December 2023 review of submission by Haplo1990

I do not know how to implement the proper formatting or convert the references to the standard form. Any additional feedback on this article would be appreciated. Thank you. Haplo1990 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Haplo1990 please start by reading WP:REFB and WP:CITE and come back to this thread with specific questions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:45, 3 December 2023 review of submission by QuietSisyphus

I am having difficulty getting the article Draft:Eberhard Kirchberg to be accepted. It has been rejected for the reason that "The vast majority of citations are to primary sources". However, a majority of the references are to scientific papers and books discussing the papers and work of Kirchberg. Are these not secondary sources? Any clarification on what constitutes secondary sources or examples of ones I could use for a modern mathematician and his work would be appreciated. QuietSisyphus (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietSisyphus I think it would help to a great extent if you used {{Cite journal}} -WP:REFB and WP:CITE are your friends here - (with as many of the parameters as you have available filled in) for the papers. This gives a non specialist reviewer a better chance of verifying that the paper has been peer reviewed.
As I'm sure you know, a peer review is effectively a critique of not only their work but their approach to work, so qualifies as a reference. Arxiv.org is a deprecated source. Finding a reliable source for that paper would help immensely. Further help will be to find media coverage (not simply academic papers) that speak about him. Non-English language sources are perfectly fine.
I do not have the expertise to judge whether he is sufficiently notable to pass WP:NPROF. My gut instinct says he is, but any weight to can add to the scale pan will help the next reviewer.
By the way, the draft has been declined - pushed back to you for further work - not rejected, which would signify the end of the line. I'm not sure the prior reviews were as helpful as you might have wished. That happens sometimes, and ought not to. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shooting Star (spacecraft)

I am having difficulty getting the article Draft:Eberhard Kirchberg to be accepted. It has been rejected many times. can someone instruct me what is wrong in this draft. I have tried all the ways i know. So please tell what must me added or removed. I don't know how it looks as advertisement article when it's somewhat in parallel to Dream Chaser, the spacecraft page of this service module. Your opinions matter. 122.187.144.98 (talk) 08:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is a difference in this process between "declined" and "rejected". Rejected would mean resubmission is not possible. Declined means it is possible. Have you read the advice left by reviewers? The main issue seems to be that most of the sources are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a Wikipedia page to know what is an independent source. 122.187.144.98 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source which is independent of the topic is an independent source.
A source related to the subject is a primary source.
A source published by the subject is a self published source.
With regard to reliable sources, please see WP:RSP for w list which is not definitive, showing what his and is not reliable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 3 December 2023 review of submission by DEBASISHTANTI07

why the Wikipedia didn't accept my article DEBASISHTANTI07 (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left a message for you. Please read it and improve your draft. zoglophie•talk• 11:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 3 December 2023 review of submission by Meganinja202

I need someone to help me to complete this page, I tried translate the most i could from the spanish wiki post about this sport channel, but it was not enough for the english standards for wiki

Any help is apreciated, thanks Meganinja202 (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Meganinja202 I think all it needs is additional references, no need for them to be in English, that meet our requirements.
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.
I don't think it needs more words.
You can do this! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:49, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 3 December 2023 review of submission by Flukspk14


Request failed I would like to use the wiki that I have made for a temporary period. Flukspk14 (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Flukspk14: sorry, I don't understand what you're asking (if anything). I also don't understand what you were trying to do with this draft (such as it was). Please elaborate? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 3 December 2023 review of submission by שלומית ליר

Hi there, I am a Wikipedia researcher from Israel and would like to know how to improve this article. Thank you שלומית ליר (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

שלומית ליר you should consider adding the content you have written into Nahal Oz attack, as that article is not that long yet. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are two different places and situations. One is a Kibbutz, and the second is a military post nearby.שלומית ליר (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:14, 3 December 2023 review of submission by Jeremiah97478

Hello there, recently my draft/submission for the starting pieces of a page dedicated for the neurodivergent was declined due to the possible result of understanding nothing of wikipedia and probably not having enough description for this. I understand this as I did this as a bare bones foundation for others to work on.

But I seem to probably not understand, I would like some advice then if it's possible? Thanks Jeremiah97478 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know what for references, I'm sorry :(" are you asking what references mean or the topic doesn't have any reference to cite in the draft? zoglophie•talk• 18:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:33, 3 December 2023 review of submission by Demeke Akalu

i Just wanted to create my own Wikipedia account kindly assist with the matter thank you Demeke Akalu (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Demeke Akalu: you have created your account, Demeke Akalu. Is there a problem? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DA created and submitted to AfC Sandbox content which was Rejected. David notMD (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 3 December 2023 review of submission by MASHIACHNOW123

Hello, I attempted to publish a page on the Mansu Hill area of Pyongyang, DPRK but it was removed. Now it is a draft. I would like to fix this page so it can be published, but I do not know what changes to make. Would it be possible to just have others do it? MASHIACHNOW123 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MASHIACHNOW123 likely not as most drafts are dependent on those who create them. The draft does not cite any sources which begs the question from where did you get the information? If it was from published reliable sources, then cite them (see also this guide for citing sources). If from your own knowledge, then that is not usable here. S0091 (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All info is from Korean Wikipedia's article for Mansu Hill. There, no sources are given. MASHIACHNOW123 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MASHIACHNOW123, Korean Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Note that different language Wikipedias are completely separate projects and can have different standards on content. So even if an article exists in other languages, it may not be appropriate to have an article on the English Wikipedia.
If you want to continue with the draft, it is your responsibility to find appropriate reliable, secondary, and in-depth sources to meet the general notability guideline, or demonstrate that it meets the notability guideline specific to geographical features. You should also consider cleaning up the article on Korean Wikipedia as well. Happy editing! Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

09:01, 4 December 2023 review of submission by Basittali

Hi Zoglophie,

I have included the initial information along with certain citations and links. My intention was to add more information in subsequent edits, but my submissions have been consistently rejected. Could you please provide guidance on what I should do next? Basittali (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1188265898"