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 Wp.ramesh wiki (talk | contribs) at 10:31, 3 September 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Ek_rajai_teen_lugai). 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


August 28

00:34, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Mollystarkdean

How do I prove that this prominent author and journalist deserves a Wiki per "the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article"? Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ebony_Reed Mollystarkdean (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mollystarkdean: you have to produce sources that meet either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:AUTHOR notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mollystarkdean. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Hardly any of your sources meet those criteria (see WP:42 for more information). ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 28 August 2024 review of submission by MattHaigh153

My article has 6 references, two of them talking directly about the subject that I just added. I am just wondering why they aren't qualified MattHaigh153 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MattHaigh153: of the six sources, three are primary, two provide only passing mentions, and one is an interview. None of these count towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MattHaigh. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:22, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Erlendenden

why did my article get rejected Erlendenden (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be in Norwegian, and this is the English Wikipedia. You should go to the Norwegian Wikipedia(there appears to be two, either this one or this one). It also appears to be completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: nn is Nynorsk, a variant written form of Norwegian. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erlendenden: Not only do we not accept Norwegian text (as this is the English-language Wikipedia), your draft is entirely unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Shom.analytics

Why is my article being rejected multiple times and after I've edited it for neutrality and shortened it by removing 90% of the content, it now slaps me with the "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

Why is that so? Shom.analytics (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shom.analytics: this draft has been rejected, because after multiple earlier declines, it still shows absolutely no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it's a description of a company that has been around for 30 years, what kind of evidence do I have to show? I had lots of them but was declined due to press conferences being not allowed. Can you give me some examples of what kind of evidence can I provide? Shom.analytics (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shom.analytics: the notability guideline for businesses is given at WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to just document the existence of a business. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the business. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the sources sees as notable about the business. If your payment is dependent on you successfully creating an article, I suggest that you return their money. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:06, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Masierra2008

Like, I'm trying to get people to submit my article in no time, but it always fails. Somehow due to DoubleGrazing rejecting it which stinks. Nowadays, maybe I'll have to redo my article again though? I don't like this problem. I-I mean, I don't know what is wrong with Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Plus, sometimes when they see links or references I did, they constantly complain about it. I shouldn't be stupid to realize what's the big deal. Can someone please help me submit to all my article and publish them? Show me how! Masierra2008 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masierra2008: please make that paid-editing disclosure already. We shouldn't have to keep asking. And after that, answer my question about other user accounts. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we stop feeding the troll. Theroadislong (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now blocked. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:16, 28 August 2024 review of submission by 89.76.11.134

Hello! I would like to know. What is wrong with the sources here? The same sources are accepted in German version. Even if Lower Sorbian version doesn't provide necessary sources, German version does(even though the text of the article is exactly the same as in Lower Sorbian, Upper Sorbian and probably Lithuanian too). Anyway, Jan Chojan was really the first author who wrote Lower Sorbian in 1650 ;) Can you tell me what additional sources I should find? Thanks for your help. Kind regards. 89.76.11.134 (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lower Sorbian grammar in 1650 ;)
89.76.11.134 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this I feel I would have treated it as an acceptance. I am about to do that for you. There are some lacks in the citation formant but those can be solved in mainspace 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my learned friend, but just for future reference: it isn't enough to say that sources exist in the corresponding article in another language version of Wikipedia; they need to be imported and cited here. Also, whether particular sources were deemed sufficient for acceptance in another language version doesn't matter, as each version is entirely separate with their own rules and requirements. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, DoubleGrazing. The reason for moving it to be an article now is that these issues can, and should be fixed now it is an article. This does not mean, IP editor, that you need to do it, but it would be helpful if you would do so.
Please read {{cite book}} as an example of better use of a reference.
Now, let us deal wth addition referencing. A person so far back in history may be difficult to reference. I based my acceptance on the one strong fact for notability - the first dictionary in Sorbian. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Rubyzinner

It is not getting published! Rubyzinner (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubyzinner: I assume you mean Draft:Jonathan A. Abrams? This draft has been rejected for lack of notability, that's why it isn't getting published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but he is rebranding to Jonathan Abrams (no middle A) so I changed it on his project pages but need to change it here as well. Also while you are here - can you please help me change the image on Meghann Fahy's page? Rubyzinner (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, this subject has been deemed non-notable, and the draft won't therefore be published. Whether he is 'rebranding' or not, doesn't come into it.
For general editing advice, please ask at the Teahouse instead. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:33, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Kudzuboss123

What was wrong with it? I don't know what to fix for next time Kudzuboss123 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no references. See Referencing for beginners. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 28 August 2024 review of submission by سنتوری

I just wanted to make the fair with objective facts that already is visible in another language (Farsi) so I just used Direct and some other different Blogs and Websites. I don't know how I can fix this issue. سنتوری (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted as blatant promotion. The Farsi Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies(and with the current Iranian regime it may be difficult for many Farsi speakers to edit it). What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 28 August 2024 review of submission by MakurProTyler

I want to resubmit my draft. Help me MakurProTyler (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. C F A 💬 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Kraznoljav

I refrained from using Armenian references, but I found out that it is not very difficult to add. Would you advise to remove any information that is not (correctly) cited/referenced?

Thank you for clarifying Kraznoljav (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References do not need to be in English, as long as they are reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Philscijazz

I'm planning to remove remaining items/sections cited only by the CV (even though one person at the Help Desk suggested that, for notable academics, the CV would be citable - he is notable under academic criteria given his election to APS in 1959, plus his APS prize in 1977 and his Humboldt przie in 1983).

I'm hoping the rest qualify as sufficiently independent and reliable. But it may not be meaty enough for a full-fledged article.

Can this draft still be submitted as a Stub?

After all, the subject is mentioned on at least two Wikipedia pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fellows_of_the_American_Physical_Society_(1921%E2%80%931971)#1959

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Hobbs_Moore

Looking for guidance on any way this could be made acceptable for resubmission. Should I add some comments somewhere as I submit it, mentioning the academic notability and suggesting acceptance as a stub?

Or is this simply unfixable until such time as there is an obit that qualifies? Philscijazz (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz: you've asked this already at the Teahouse; please don't ask in multiple venues, as that just duplicates efforts in answering.
This person would appear to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC #3, if nothing else, so I will go and accept the draft as it's quite an easy accept. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, and apologies for the multiple asks. I'd been getting some conflicting advice and wanted to confirm a path forward (I omitted some additional detail that was only cited on self-written sources like CV, even if published on the university website). Thanks for finessing the grammar as well. Philscijazz (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Philscijazz: no worries.
For the record, I think it's pretty obvious that the APS fellowship and the Humboldt Prize make him notable. As long as those are reliably referenced, even just from primary sources as long as those sources can be assumed notable reliable (eg. university's faculty website), notability is established. That's all I really needed to know. (That, and that there aren't any copyright violations, wild unreferenced claims, etc., of which I found none.) In that sense, the lack of independent secondary sources was a bit of a red herring on this occasion. That's my rationale, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 28 August 2024 review of submission by 2601:240:4D01:A8E0:D19B:6C6B:1C0C:68BB

erm whyd u reject it 2601:240:4D01:A8E0:D19B:6C6B:1C0C:68BB (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is very very unlikely that any Roblox account has been written about in reliable sources sufficiently to make it notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word. Also, your draft cites no sources at all.
A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent published sources say about a subject, that's all. If there are no such sources, then there is no article. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:06, 28 August 2024 review of submission by Finlay73

I am not sure what to do to get this page confirmed. I dont want to submit unless i am sure it is ready, as i wouldn't want to waste anyone's time. Please let me know what i need to do. Thankyou! Finlay73 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay73 I don't know if it can be confirmed. The article subject does not appear to have been covered in a significant way by secondary sources. They are hence not notable enough to be included. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the British Judo Council (which is a huge organisation) confirms on their website that he is the current president. How many secondary sources are needed? He is mentioned in other secondary sources but ones I didn’t think had information worthy of being on his Wikipedia page. Sounds I just attach them in the references column anyway? Cheers Finlay73 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the judo council may be notable, merely being the president of a notable company does not warrant someone getting their own article. Notability is not inherited. Sorry, but I have done a check and there is insufficient significant coverage to justify a stand alone article for this individual. I don't think it's a wise use of your time to try and expand it further, as if there is no notability, it cannot be moved to mainspace. Thanks — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

06:55, 29 August 2024 review of submission by Gulshan99

Hi Team,

My name is Gulshan Pandey. I am working on an article about an Indian politician named Tarun Chugh. Unfortunately, it has been deleted or moved to draft several times, and I am unsure what mistakes I am making. Previously, I created the page for "Sonawari Assembly constituency," which was published on the first attempt, but this time I am having difficulty getting the article published. I have included many prominent media links as references. Could you please suggest what I should do to ensure the article meets the necessary standards?

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards, Gulshan Pandey 

Gulshan99 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Tarun chugh
@Gulshan99: you created this article, it was moved to drafts, where you submitted it for review and it was declined. Unless you have other versions or earlier attempts at this, that seems to be all there is, so I'm not sure that qualifies as "several times".
I also note that you've resubmitted the draft after it was declined without making any improvements to it whatsoever. Please do not do that, it is a surefire way to get your draft rejected. The idea is that when a draft is declined, the reason(s) for the decline are outlined in the decline notice, and your job is to address those reasons before resubmitting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Prominent media links" is not what we're looking for. We need to see significant coverage of this person, in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. Note that this excludes passing mentions, routine election coverage and similar, interviews, anything where the subject himself is commenting on other matters, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Within the summary for one of your edits to this, you write: "I appreciate your concern regarding the possible Conflict of Interest." Is there a conflict of interest? -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:07, 29 August 2024 review of submission by Shom.analytics

Hi can I seek advice on this? Because I have edited and water down everything to be neutral and just describing what the company does. Shom.analytics (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shom.analytics: that's as may be, but you haven't produced any evidence of notability, and therefore the draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't want just a description of what the company does. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shom.analytics You are a self declared paid editor. Please use your pay to fund your time to learn about policies here by studying them. Please start with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. There is no reason for the majority of amateur editors to spend their time helping you to get paid. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 29 August 2024 review of submission by Jaykay9090

I am requesting assistance because my article submission on Álvaro Martínez Bueno was not accepted, despite my efforts to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. The reviewer mentioned issues with the reliability of sources, the formal tone, and a potential conflict of interest (COI). I have carefully selected sources, ensured a neutral and formal tone, and I have no personal connection to the artist. However, I am struggling to identify where I might have gone wrong. I would greatly appreciate guidance on how to improve my article to meet Wikipedia’s standards, particularly in addressing the concerns raised by the reviewer. Jaykay9090 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The style section is completely unsourced. Every substantive fact about a living person must be sourced, per WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a quick look, few if any of your sources meet the triple criteria of being reliably published, wholly independent of Bueno, and containing significant coverage of Bueno (not just of particular workds). See WP:42 for more detail.
A Wikipedia article must be mostly based on such sources: without several such, no article is possible, because no article can establish that he meets the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:58, 29 August 2024 review of submission by 152.2.251.129

My article keeps getting declined. What am I doing wrong? I have included inline references, both internal and external to wikipedia. What is the magic ticket? Thanks 152.2.251.129 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included the reason why it was declined. It said "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 (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). 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." 152.2.251.129 (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As this message describes, your sources do not demonstrate notability. See WP:BIO.
Please log in when posting. You seem to have a connection with this person as you took a very professional looking image of her and she posed for you. You must disclose this connection, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "magic ticket" is finding sources that are not just reliably published, but are wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject specifically: see WP:42. Citing an article which is mostly an interview is of very limited use: citing the same article four times in different publications sends the message "I'm so desperate to find something to cite that I'll cite the same thing four times and hope people don't notice" which in turn suggests that there are probably simply not enough sources to establish that Eish meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:56, 29 August 2024 review of submission by Dupontgeorgea

I see people on Wikipedia with their biography, why is this biography not allowed but others are? What distinguishes ones that are accepted and those that are not? Dupontgeorgea (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced. People do not "have biographies" here, Wikipedia has articles about people that meet our criteria. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about them topic. While not impossible, that is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dupontgeorgea This text would be next to impossible to turn into a draft article. It would require a complete rewrite for tone, and full referencing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left 'm my usual deletion notice-- highly informative and well thought out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

00:41, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Joieva

I have followed all the instruction but I'm not sure why it's still rejected, what should I have done? Joieva (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joieva:, thanks for the post. Unfortunately, I must disagree with the claim that you followed all the instruction. You were advised several times that your draft did not meet notability guidelines. The rejections contained many links that explain how and what constitutes notability. Pointedly: notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. The onus was on you to read the guidelines linked to you, and either you did not do so, or refused to follow them or seek further assistance to understand them. You continually submitted the article no less than six times despite being warned it would be rejected if you did not make the requested improvements, and then went ahead and put it forth a seventh. It has not been (correctly in my view) rejected on a final basis. You have continually failed to provide secondary sources, and so the rejector has correctly taken this to mean that no additional references exist, meaning subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. As the draft is rejected, I'm afraid you have no further recourse and must abandon your efforts here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:10, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Dj Makosam Official

please i dont know why you rejected my page Dj Makosam Official (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dj Makosam Official: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a channel for self-promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:21, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Francisasinatra

The record-holder before Mr. Buckley had an article about him, so I am wondering why Mr. Buckley's case isn't notable enough. I think that I met my burden on providing relevant information about him. Please let me know how I can make this work. -Fred M. Francisasinatra (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Francisasinatra, did you look at the linked deletion discussion? Your first step needs to be overcoming the issues raised there. If you can do that, you'll also need some better sources - LinkedIn isn't acceptable, and your sources should discuss Buckley in some detail. Having his name listed along with other names isn't enough, and obituaries for family members don't tell us anything about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:26, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Abbaskip

Hi I'd like to understand in further detail why this article is being declined. There are multiple independent sources, with articles written specifically about the distillery - which I understand to be the primary criteria (as well as others which are just referencing certain stated facts). The brand is an established brand, available at mainstream retailers throughout Australia - and the references are no different to those provided on multiple Scotch Whisky distilleries of a similar age. Abbaskip (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left an explanation on the draft, as well as other comments on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you've seen other articles like yours, please identify them so we can take action. Other inappropriate articles existing cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbaskip: which sources do you think establish notability per WP:NCORP? Because I only found one myself, the Oz Whisky Review, and even that I'm not too sure about.
Additionally, I was going to add promotionality as a second decline reason. This reads like an online brochure to me.
Whether their products are available at retailers is not a notability criterion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This sounds like an online brochure" is dismissive and entirely off the mark. Apart from the awards being mentioned, the article is generally about the history of the distillery, being founded, sold and bought back - plus the products they product. It's not a sales pitch at all.
Both Spirit Business references, Tasmanian Times article and the Shout all establish notability. Abbaskip (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem particularly invested in this topic. Are you associated with this business in some way?
The acquisition of this business by another, and the reversal of that acquisition, (what the Spirit sources document) are routine business activities that do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no way related to the business, I work in an entirely different industry, live in a different state and don't know the business owners. I do drink the whisky though, and have noticed that the Australian whisky industry is severely under-represented on Wikipedia (likely) due to these sorts of rejections.
You're essentially moving the goal posts for a notability - as world industry awards certainly establish notabiliy, otherwise no whisky brands would be on Wikipedia (when basically every distillery in Scotland is). Abbaskip (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the precise section in WP:NCORP where it says that a company becomes notable by virtue of its products winning some awards? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I'll provide you a list of 90% of Scotch whisky distilleries for your removal. Abbaskip (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator, I cannot remove any page. I can request speedy deletion, or begin AfD discussion, but then again so can you. Feel free to take whatever action you deem appropriate with any articles that you feel aren't up to scratch, including of course improving them as the preferred option.
You may also wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You probably need to learn to understand how conversation english works, since you're such an expert on encylopedic articles - and realise that my comment was to make a point, not to have the articles deleted.
This article is simply not being accepted as the various moderators here haven't heard of the brand themselves. There is generally very little written media to reference for Spirits brands beyond articles outlining award winners, reviews and materials that could be deemed promotional.
Look at Tamdhu Distillery as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamdhu_distillery Abbaskip (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that English (or even 'english') is not my first language. None of us are perfect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My typing certainly isn't perfect either (no edit in talk articles is strange), but I'd have thought that was a given in a back and forth (conversational) talk article.
I've removed a reference to "Casey's Shed" (despite this being a common whisky COMMUNITY term - not something 'affectionately known' by the industry or business itself (but hey, the wiki experts who know zero about Australian Whisky are here, so I need to get these things right).
I've added a CNN Travel reference, multiple other newspaper references - businesses buying businesses IS significant in the Australian whisky industry, especially when it's Lark (Australia's first established whisky distillery), and means the distillery moves with the purchase (something that was deemed sufficient notability in the Tamdhu Distillery article). Abbaskip (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not suggesting the Tamdhu article should be removed, nor that it's a bad article - simply that your standards of notability are off, due to your own biases. Abbaskip (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettercairn_distillery
Another distillery page just like Tamdhu listing essentially nothing but ownership information, and with one of the references being a simple distillery profile on a page that has an indexed profile for all Scotch Whisky distilleries.
Again, the issue isn't that these pages shouldn't be accepted, it's the misapplied definition of notability being used for Overeem Whisky but not other Scotch distilleries. Abbaskip (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbaskip "Again, the issue isn't that these pages shouldn't be accepted, it's the misapplied definition of notability being used for Overeem Whisky but not other Scotch distilleries. "
I disagree wholeheartedly. Instead t is that the English Language Wikipedia has made ts acceptance criteria more robust since many articles were placed here. The Wild West of the early days has gone, and our poachers of yore have either gone or Become gamekeepers. In that 'spirit' I have just flagged Fettercairn distillery for additional referencing.
This is something you can help with, should you choose to. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do the same with Tamdhu distillery?
You could also add Dalwhinnie Distillery? Another with similar sources.
In fact the vast majority of distillery articles have similar sources, because as mentioned this is what Notability looks like in the whisky industry. Abbaskip (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbaskip That was done by another.
I am not sure that Dalwhinnie Distillery suffers from the same issues, but I have tagged it for inconsistent use of tense. I understand what you mean with regard to this industry. "Inherent notability" allows an article to exist, bit that does not say that referencing cannot be improved, nor that prose cannot be improved.
Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a substantial number of secondary, independent sources regarding Overeem whisky, the distillery etc now. Is it worth resubmitting now? I feel it's over referenced to be honest, and I'm finding it extremely hard to not make the primary article look more like a marketing piece than it apparently already is, but legitimately cite other references for notability. Essentially the things that make it notable are things that make it look a marketing piece. I've also changed some language and removed some pieces that should also make the article read less like a flyer.
Sincere thanks for your very useful feedback and honesty, really is much appreciated and helpful Abbaskip (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbaskip Three references are contraindicated by their reliability:
I would look at them with care and make a decision.
One source of over-referencing is the products section. Assuming you link in external links to the corporate website (just one link, please) and I have not checked, I would drop this entire section, unless a particular product is particularly special, when it needs a reference to say so.
I suggest you scour the prose for phraseology such as "returning to the family" whcih really is purple prose and eliminate anything that looks as if written for a magazine.
I feel it is acceptable currently, though somewhat vulnerable. Tightening it up, cutting elements, will remove the vulnerability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll look now. I understand that copying other articles is fraught with danger - however the product list is extremely common on Whisky Distillery Wikipedia articles, as it's an important aspect that defines the type of product the distillery offers, is factual and isn't subjective. The links were generally to the corp website and product range though, so I'll update.
I'm interested in why you think those references/sources are potentially not reliable?
I'll also work on language.
Thanks again Abbaskip (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbaskip I have a gadget that colour codes them based upon a table of sources. I get Green, no colour, amber, and red. These are amber. That alerts a "Stare hard at this" response. One is a blog, which tend to be generated with limited or no editorial oversight. Without checking again, one feels very much like churnalism, and the other is one you should study based upon those clues.
Just because other articles on distilleries do something does not mean those are correct. These things become self perpetuating if we don't take care. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbaskip You might also reduce the number of citations per fact. Once cited it is cited. More is by no means necessarily better than a single citation. Choosing the best is key before discarding others.
Note that opinions here differ on this point. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry the multiple edits are because I was doing it on my phone. I was clearing up sources, removing some of those I figured weren't needed and also trying to make the language more succinct and encyclopedic in some places.
I believe I've addressed the issue around notability and sources already, and have removed some of the other sources. Abbaskip (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I redid the first section of the article referencing that the distillery was the 4th in Tasmania, that it was considered one of Australian Whisky's founding distilleries, and then redid most of the first paragraph of the History section to avoid double up, but it seems to have disappeared? I also can't find it in version history? Abbaskip (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbaskip It cannot be absent from the history of the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I edited it again, based on your note. The prior edit mustn't have properly saved or similar. Abbaskip (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to edit your own comments to fix errors- click "edit" in the section header. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks for this. Abbaskip (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out another problematic article that needs action taken- I've marked it as such. We're only as good as those who participate, and we need help to weed out inappropriate content that isn't suitable as an example. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in my opinion this is promotional, and I would have added that as a decline reason. You're entitled to have a different opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft actually says (affectionately known as "Casey's Shed"), which is so unencyclopedic and non-neutral and cloyingly promotional that it calls everything else into question. An encyclopedia does not instruct its readers what to be affectionate about. That's just the most blatant example of promotional content. I fully endorse "This sounds like an online brochure" which is what any experienced, uninvolved editor would say after reading this. Print it up on glossy paper and hand it out at adult beverage trade shows. Promotional editing is forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to remove that from the draft. That was a term used amongst the Australian Whisky Community (drinkers, not industry - I have no idea what they industry do). Abbaskip (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Kanapala Zenith

Let me know necessary corrections in my article. Kanapala Zenith (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Kanapala Zenith/sandbox
Your draft is completely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:48, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Shamsuddin Haider

problems in this article will be fixed now Shamsuddin Haider (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shamsuddin Haider: this draft has been rejected. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't available previously, you may appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:53, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Adari Aravind

Hi Iwaqar,

I'm Aravind from Visakhapatnam. The subject of this article belongs to a political family in Anakapalle district and he leads a 2000+ crores annual turnover dairy company called Visakha Dairy. So, I kindly request you to do research on him and revert for the consideration of publishing it into Wiki.

Thanks & Regards, Aravind Adari Aravind (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adari Aravind unfortunately you did not think to provide references to show what, if any, notability the subject has, which has led to rejection. You share names with the subject. If this is an autobiography may I counsel you against creating one. Very few people indeed are able to be unbiased about themselves.
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please read HELP:YFA and WP:REFB.
This place is for asking for assistance, not for asking someone to create your (presumed) autobiography. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly consider the draft now which has references added. Thanks. Adari Aravind (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent, the draft's been recreated - would you mind having a look to see if it's been improved at all, or whether it's largely identical? It looks very promotional to me, but I didn't see it pre-speedy. StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined for additional work. Thank you, @StartGrammarTime, for suggesting I look. It feels much more positive now, though still feels somewhat like a paean of praise in the tone. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adari Aravind: The burden of meeting our sourcing and content policies is on those who want the content created/added, not on helpers at a noticeboard. You need to put in the work and look for sources if you want the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly consider the draft now which has references added. Thanks. Adari Aravind (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft hasn't been edited since it was declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:12, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Finlay550

Hi, just wondering further in detail what the minimums are? Cheers. Finlay550 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Finlay550! The subject of your draft does not appear to be notable per the biographies notability guideline. Please find a few in-depth, third-party sources that establish their notability. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 16:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlay550 Certainly. Please read WP:BIO which should give you a great baseline 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Finlay550. Your draft has two sources, neither of which is reliable (that's right, we don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, because it is user-generated), and neither of which is about Pickles.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what indepedent reliable sources have published about the subject - nothing less, and very little more. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Warshipnyc

Hello! I’m trying to help document unique restaurants in New York City, starting with my neighborhood of East Village. Is there anything specific for this page that needs to be edited for approval? A friend of mine did Foxface Natural’s page Warshipnyc (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warshipnyc Unique does not always, perhaps does not often, equate to passing WP:NCORP, which you should study.
This draft was rejected yesterday, which means it will not proceed further 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Warshipnyc. The way that you wrote the article makes it seem like you're interested in promoting the business. —asparagusus (interaction) sprouts! 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:20, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Cooldudeseven7

I have gotten declined once and at the moment I have done a lot of changes and also got quite alot of help from other wikipedians. I would like to know if my article, Fuller GT Magnet Elementary is suitable for resubmission? If not, please notify me with tips. Thank you, Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, but a quick scan through the sources tells me they're all either primary, or routine business reporting, neither of which contributes towards notability per WP:ORG. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cooldudeseven7, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which says Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). Your draft does not make a clear claim to notability. If a school is on the National Register of Historic Places or the equivalent in other countries, then it qualifies. If the school's architecture is so unusual and distinctive that it has been written about extensively in multiple reliable architecture magazines and books, then it qualifies. Winning an award from a non-notable organization that is also given to 279 other schools is not a clear claim to notability. And piping "Magnet school" to "Magnet Schools of America" is poor quality editing because it implies that the notability of that organization has been established, and it hasn't. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Alright, Thank you. So, do I just delete the article I suppose? Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 18:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:18, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Laurisam

My Wikipedia submission was rejected because it was deemed “not sufficiently notable.” I believe it does meet the criteria but may need guidance on how to better demonstrate this. Could you advise on how to strengthen the article? Laurisam (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurisam Rejection means that resubmission is not possible. An organization being old doesn't make it notable. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss how the organization is notable as defined by Wikipedia that you have not yet provided, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 30 August 2024 review of submission by Nangthang

I been trying make PDF Zoland (Zomi Federal Union) Articles, it keep getting deny. How can I improve it? Nangthang (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told several times why your article keeps being rejected. It's a short stub without sufficient sources. Please go back and read the templates and comments left on the draft. Thanks — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

06:49, 31 August 2024 review of submission by TorhoKO

Hi, my submission has been declined a couple of times - and I'd like to get help in editing. I think the author is indeed worth an article on wiki, just like many other of her generations' authors from Estonia already have. I've provided lots of third party sources, that confirm her notability so I'd really like to get an perspective on what to change to get approval for the article. Thank you very much for your assistance. TorhoKO (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TorhoKO: the sources are book reviews, a database entry, and links to Finnish and Latvian publishers of her books, none of which contribute anything towards notability for her (though the book reviews might help make the books notable).
Whether "many other of her generations' authors from Estonia" are featured in Wikipedia articles isn't how we determine notability. She will have to establish notability in her own right, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:AUTHOR guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TorkhoKO, in all honesty, I have my doubts that an Estonian writer who has published four childrens' books is a convincing claim to notability. In the 21st century publishing ecosphere, I could write four children's books tomorrow, one about a baby eagle, one about a baby raven, one about about a baby sea otter, and for my granddaughter, one about a unicorn colt with rainbow coloration, and have all four published immediately if I have enough money to spend. Your draft needs to make it clear how this this author meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you might be able to write them but I wonder if you can repeatedly secure support by the Estonian cultural endowment for their publication and translation. So I beg to differ and I'll add a reference to the cultural endowment selecting to support the publication. Also the publishers are not random self-publishing houses but established Estonian publishers. 80.235.122.205 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not exclusively book reviews, her books have been repeatedly selected as some of Estonia's most beautiful books. And being translated and published in both Finland and Latvia is a notable achievement as well. 80.235.122.205 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if her books have been awarded or picked on some 'most beautiful' lists, these feats might help make those books notable, but unless we're talking Pulitzer or Nobel calibre recognition, they really won't make her notable. And having books translated really is no achievement, either, especially children's books (stereotypically, lots of pretty pictures and very little text).
I'm not categorically saying this person couldn't be notable, but so far there has been no evidence of that.
BTW, please remember to log in whenever editing. Thanks, --- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how one of her books being placed on somebody's list of 30 "beautiful books" published in Estonia or Latvia or Finland is a claim of notability. There are countless media outlets that publish "Top 25 under 25" listicles, and such "award" lists are ubiquitous on the internet. Similar list articles do not establish notability unless the awarding organization and the award itself are the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and the receipt of the award is covered in reliable sources independent of the awarding organization itself. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.. so are you claiming there's only Pulitzer recipients on wiki? @Cullen328 It's Estonia and not just some list but an annual competition and selection by a jury of experts organised by the Estonian Writers Union.
I really get your points and I would like to appreciate them, but they seem quite distanced from reality working as an author in North-Eastern Europe and getting public money to have books published and translated and featured by established outlets in recognizing their notability. I assume I should have made this article in Estonian first, then there would be editors maybe understanding the context better. TorhoKO (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say only Pulitzer-winning authors can have articles in Wikipedia. I said that if you're relying on winning prizes or awards to establish someone's notability, those have to be of significant standing (and even then, it's far from clear that notability can be thus established).
You're certainly welcome to create this article in the Estonian Wikipedia (assuming you can satisfy their notability and other requirements, of course). The English-language one is not 'special' or 'superior' in any way, it just happens to be the biggest.
And not that it matters in the slightest, but as it happens, I have a somewhat better understanding of North-Eastern European circumstances than you might think. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it somehow significant that this author obtains public money to publish her work? The US has a similar program. If you're saying that the fact she obtains public money makes her notable, that would probably be the same as receiving an award- that government program would need to be shown to be notable first. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TorkhoKO, I do not see the Estonian Writers Union mentioned in your draft. Am I wrong? If not, why not? I am not saying or hinting or implying that the Pulitzer Prize is the only notable award for literature. There are clearly hundreds or even thousands of such awards that are the subjects of Wikipedia articles that establish the notability of such awards, and winning a notable award is a piece of evidence in favor of notability. But they need to be properly referenced in the draft. I see no claim that she has received a notable award in your draft. Your comment maybe understanding the context better is not productive because your responsibilty as an author of this draft (perhaps eventually an article) is to make the context and the notability clear to any English speaking high school student in Nigeria or India or New Zealand, or even an older man like me living in California. We do not need Estonians in particular to detect notability. We need that evidence to be clearly present in the draft. We need rigorously written prose and supporting references that convince experienced Wikipedia editors from any country that this person is notable. I am not that hard to convince. Convince me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll update - thanks for that remark. TorhoKO (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think it's significant to get this kind of support, cause there's an expert jury that looks at applications and decides which kind of literary works they want to support. Thanks for you comment. TorhoKO (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:10:36, 31 August 2024 review of draft by Himaldrmann


I'm confused by the "AfC" thing—the pages on article creation seem to suggest that I can simply create an article and didn't need to go through the review process, since my account and # of edits meet or exceed the requirements to do so.

Is this the case? If so, how do I, uh, un-submit my article (Draft:Hinc illae lacrimae) & just publish it, instead of waiting 4+ months(!)?

(Not that it's really urgent or anything... but still! It took several hours for all the phrasing, sourcing, & OCD-editing... so I want it accessible, darn it! :P)

Cheers & thanks,

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Himaldrmann: usually you could literally just undo your submission, but seeing as you created the whole thing in a single edit, that's not an option. You can remove all the AfC templates from the draft, but that's a bit messier.
You can then move the article into the main space, which will have the effect of removing the Draft: prefix from its title. New page patrol will then come along at some point to run the proverbial ruler over it.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!
One request for clarification, if you have an extra sec: does removing the Afc templates automatically move it into the main space, or is that some second action I must take afterward?
(Sorry, I OCD-edit wording/grammar on articles a lot but this is the first time I actually created one--I saw that the Lacrimae rerum article didn't have "hinc illae lacrimae" in the "See also:" section, and when I went to add it, I found there was no "hinc illae lacrimae" page... I'm supposed to be doing actual work, but, well, I just couldn't let that stand--... Lol!)
Cheers,
Himaldrmann (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh, I think I see it (the "Move" link, surprisingly enough...).
NOW my only question is, re the templates: do I need to somehow remove "transcluded" templates (and if so, uh, how--)?
Thanks again, and my apologies for my slow(-in-the-head-)ness,
Himaldrmann (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Himaldrmann: no, removing the AfC templates doesn't move the draft into the main space, or v.v.
Let me know if you'd like me to do all that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Himaldrmann, please be prepared to explain why this topic belongs on the English Wikipedia instead of Wikiquote. It seems more appropriate for that other website to me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, I don't know if it isn't more appropriate for Wikiquote or not—I based the decision to create it on Wikipedia partly because there would be room to explain a bit about & include examples of notable historical uses, and I had the impression Wikiquote entries were mainly "just the quote"; and partly on the fact that entries like Lacrimae rerum existed (...and I wanted the articles to include each other under "See also" as a pleasing symmetry, heh, because I'm obsessive-compulsive–).
But if more experienced editors object, I won't kick up a fuss or nothin'!
Himaldrmann (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help! Please accept this sham trophy until I may craft you a better one: ✨🏆✨
Cheers once more 🥂,
Himaldrmann (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I didn't actually do anything, because another reviewer had already done the deed by the time I got there. But I'll keep the trophy in a safe place (aka. the pawn shop) until Theroadislong comes to claim it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This got me wondering what the origin of the word was and apparently it's ..."derived from the Greek tropaion, referred to arms, standards, other property, or human captives and body parts (e.g., headhunting) captured in battle". I'll let you keep it this time. Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:27, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Arnavvibhuti

The book is available on Google books and multiple other sites globally. I am not able to add references. Kindly add references and create the article. Arnavvibhuti (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnavvibhuti I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. If you are unable to add references, the topic cannot be on Wikipedia. Any article about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. The text that is there now- even if it were sourced- is a blatant advertisement. That's not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnavvibhuti: sorry, but that's not how this works, we don't fulfil article creation requests here at the help desk. If you want Draft:Echoes Of Kotdwar to be accepted, you need to provide evidence that it is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Kaeez06


Clarification on Reference Requirements for School Articles Hello,

I recently submitted a Wikipedia article for Matha Senior Secondary School but it was declined due to insufficient references. I understand the importance of citations, but I noticed that similar school articles, like the one for Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Cherthala , have been accepted with only a single citation from the official school website.

Given that Matha Senior Secondary School is a well-established educational institution, I believe the reference requirements might be more flexible, especially since it is common for school articles to have limited external sources. Could you please clarify why the article was declined and provide guidance on what constitutes sufficient referencing for school articles? Additionally, how can I ensure that my submission meets the necessary standards?

Thanks in advance. Kaeez06 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaeez06: we don't assess drafts by comparing them to whatever may exist out there among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia; we do so by reference to the currently applicable policies and guidelines. And no, those requirements are not 'flexible', they are pretty much hard and fast. This draft needs to demonstrate that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and it currently falls well short of either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kaeez06 (EC) fixed your header, the name of the draft is supposed to go where you had "Clarification..." written. Just because another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are many ways to get inappropriate articles past us, and you would not be aware that they were inappropriate as an inexperienced user. We haven't yet gotten around to removing all the inappropriate articles, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can. See other stuff exists. Many articles about schools were created before policies were tightened up a few years ago(see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and existence is no longer sufficient to merit an article. The school must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
If you would like to help us, please point out other inappropriate articles on schools so we can take action. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Parsita

What information i am missing? I understand the importance of citation. I have cited links from reliable sources about the subject including newspaper journals. I have taken reference of another wikipedia subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaan_Ghosh. Please assist. Parsita (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social media is not a reliable source. YouTube is not a reliable source, unless the video is from a reputable media outlet on its verified channel. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about the subject: nothing less, and very little more. As far as I can see not one of your citations is to a reliable source that is wholly unconnected with Majumdar and contains significant coverage of Majumdar. That means that you have nothing at all to base your draft on, and it cannot possibly be an acceptable article. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realiable If there another way to send a Screen here it would Second to it takes secong to submit Jweighed1 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Jweighed1

for safety Measure Of Fraud And Zero Trust Artificial Intelligence Law Jweighed1 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jweighed1. You apparently submitted your sandbox User:Jweighed1/sandbox, but that has no content. (Another editor has undone the submission).
Please read WP:YFA to understand how to create a Wikipedia article.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Rresha

what do i need to reference in this article to get it approved Rresha (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First you can tell us what your relationship is with him, as it appears he attempted to write this text himself at Draft:Magnus Achor. You might also want to let him know that he has likely improperly claimed the photo(with a watermark) as his own personal work and has improperly claimed that he personally owns the copyright. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Ansaar20

Please add this is new company Ansaar20 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansaar20: If it is a new company then the odds are it cannot meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article at this time. We are not a directory or billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 31 August 2024 review of submission by SUNIL SUNDARI

I am Sunil kumar meena 

My Wikipedia page should be made public My Wikipedia page should be made public SUNIL MEENA (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopaedia NOT social media. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SUNIL SUNDARI: Absolutely not. We are not going to accept an unsourced two-sentence "article" on a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:14, 31 August 2024 review of submission by Robertabonaldo

problems having article accepted Robertabonaldo (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertabonaldo: that's not a question; do you have one in mind you'd like to ask? You've resubmitted the draft and it is awaiting another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

02:38, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Xinwang822

Dear reviewer,

Please specify which reference does not meet the requirements. Do you give examples of references that meet the requirements? I will modify it as required, thank you! Xinwang822 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xinwang822: this draft wasn't declined for inadequate referencing, but rather for inadequate evidence of notability. You need to provide sources proving that the subject satisfies either of the WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Artaxerex

please help me to improve Alishah Novin has been helping youth to become computer savey, and NTC has awarded him for his efforts. There has been many videos of his work. I think NTC should be a reliable source, despite the fact that Novin is now moved to Seatelle. Please help me to improve the article. Artaxerex (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxerex I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended, so we know what you are referencing. This isn't the place to request co-editors. NTC may be a reliable source for its own awards, but it is not an independent source and as such does not establish that they meet the definition of a notable person. Any article about this person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about them. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appologize for not understanding that NTC is not independent source. I used Ai to generate the article. I thought independent implies the source should not be related to Alishah Novin. Artaxerex (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artaxerex It's not a good idea to be using AI to generate an article, that presents several issues, see WP:LLM. If you're doing that because English is not your primary language, you may feel more comfortable editing the Wikipedia of your primary language. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it isn't better than others.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article(such as Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award or Filmfare Award) but even then there needs to be more than just documentation of the award, there needs to be independent reliable sources that discuss it. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:05, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Rockywriter88

Dear Reviewer,
In response to the previous feedback, I have made significant updates to the draft, particularly to enhance the notability of Ruben van Schalm's work. Below are the key changes:
  1. Museum Collections: I have provided detailed references showing that Ruben van Schalm's artwork, not just his book Paradise, is included in the permanent collections of notable museums. For example, his work is now part of the collection at The MA-g The Museum of Avant Garde, Switzerland, CH [1], which is a recognized institution in the art world. This inclusion contributes directly to establishing his notability.
  2. Secondary Sources: I have added secondary sources, including interviews and critical analyses, to provide independent coverage of his work. These sources are attached as PDFs, and have also been cited within the draft to support various claims about his career and impact in the field of photography. [2] - [3] - [4]
  3. Inline Citations: All claims related to his museum collections, exhibitions, and other notable achievements have been backed by inline citations, allowing for easy verification of the information provided.
  4. Addressing Concerns: I have taken care to address the concerns raised in previous reviews, particularly regarding the use of primary sources and the importance of showcasing his artwork's inclusion in notable institutions.
Note: Additionally, I have included Authority Control databases in the draft to further enhance its credibility and verification. These databases provide standardized information and external validation of Ruben van Schalm's identity and works, contributing to the draft's overall reliability and notability.
I hope these updates meet the necessary notability and sourcing guidelines for the draft to be accepted. I would appreciate any further feedback or guidance you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Rockywriter88 Rockywriter88 (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, the first step is to appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 1 September 2024 review of submission by DOKTOR RICEBOWL

My submission on an article of a living person has been decline because the submission does not use adequate reliable sources. This submission's references "does not show the subject qualifies a Wikipedia article" I would like to request help to improve the article to get this article approved. DOKTOR RICEBOWL (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DOKTOR RICEBOWL: you need to support the information with reliable sources throughout, and at least a few (3+) of those sources must establish notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:48, 1 September 2024 review of submission by 24.250.192.190

This is a Cedar Key personality who has legitimate press articles from Miami to NYC. Would anyone be kind enough to help with this submission? I feel the references are more than adequate and surpass in quality and quantity several similar accepted entries for notable celebrities. Michael has been featured all over the world for his reporting during Cedar Key extreme weather events, he's a published author, his many plays are performed regionally in Florida and he's been twice off-Broadway. As a Cedar Key celebrity coined as, "The Clambassador", he's represented aquaculture throughout Florida. Although his celebrity is deeply integrated in the small town of Cedar Key, it is his widespread media attention which makes him notable in my estimation. I'm not a professional Wiki-editor, but I've managed to get two other notable people represented in Wikipedia with far fewer references, so I'm at a loss as to why this is repeatedly and so quickly rejected. Maybe the standards have changed over the years, but I believe Mr. Bobbitt is notable and would appreciate any help in getting this article approved and listed in Wikipedia. Thank you kindly. 24.250.192.190 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You resubmitted it, the reviewer will leave feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the standard has changed somewhat over the years, and we have thousands and thousands of articles which would not be accepted today in their current form. Some of these could be brought up to standard by adding better sources, and trimming out text which is either not neutral or not supported by the sources; many of them will be deleted for lack of notability when somebody gets round to it.
Apart from possibly the rather vague "widespread media attention", nothing you have said above is relevant to whether he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - which are, for the most part, about whether people totally unconnected with him, and not fed information on his behalf, have chosen to write in some depth about him and been published in reliable places.
I've only got down as far as your citation no 7, but so far I haven't seen a single source which is independent of Bobbitt. This does not bode well, as none of these contributes in any way to establishing that he is WikiNotable.
I recommend you examine each of your sources critically against the criteria in WP:42. If a source does not appear reliable, get rid of it, and any information that comes solely from it. (For example, I am dubious about Gainesville Downtown: lack of a byline, no mention of an editorial policy, and - to be frank - hosting on Wordpress, all suggest a well-meaning but amateur endeavour).
Any that do not mention him, or only mention him in passing: get rid of them. They add nothing to the article.
If a source is not independent (ie it is written or published by Bobbitt or his associates, or based on an interview or press release, take it out, but keep hold of it: you may be able to use a few of these later, once you've established notability, as primary sources. It is unlikely that a citation to anything written by him will be of use. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Officialzaminaliqais

I want to add a picture of the subject Officialzaminaliqais (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. You can add images later. As you seem to represent the person you are writing about, you must disclose that, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 1 September 2024 review of submission by Wp.ramesh wiki

Hi anyone can tell me I have write the article named Ramesh Auti, what is that publishing problem. Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewers have detailed the problems at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:36, 1 September 2024 review of submission by CyantubeD

confused

why did i just have a unexcepted article CyantubeD (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell your thoughts on a topic. That's what social media is for. Please see the new user tutorial to learn more about what we do here. 331dot (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

01:46, 2 September 2024 review of submission by Fatorious music entertainment

creativity💃 and innovation Fatorious music entertainment (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not even know to begin with this. Do I address the fact you are submitting draft articles with the same title as your username, indicating a violation of WP:PROMO? Or the fact you submitted a blank sandbox for consideration by AFC? Frankly I feel like your behaviour indicates that you are not here to build an encyloapedia, so I'd stop while you're ahead. Please do not keep trying to get promotional material for your company posted, this is not the appropropriate place. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:59, 2 September 2024 review of submission by ABastol

I would like to publish good article in Wikipedia, for that I need advice to write a good article ABastol (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Please see Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is not the only or even best way one can contribute. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 2 September 2024 review of submission by Wikirobag

Hi, I've made modification in order my draft to fit wikipedia's recommendations but I did not get updates on this, would you mind letting me know if this draft can be updated ? Thanks a lot! Wikirobag (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikirobag: I'm not sure what you mean by "updates", but just to say that you haven't resubmitted this draft since your edits, therefore it isn't in the pending pool awaiting another review. If you would like it to be reviewed again, you need to click on that blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 2 September 2024 review of submission by AyanPlush

I have to make this page because I have to spread awareness to other people about doxxing or mocking religions that someone follows AyanPlush (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AyanPlush: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AyanPlush: That is not what Wikipedia is for. And we can't use Wikitubia as a source (no editorial oversight) - especially not for biographical claims - even if it were all properly sourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then how do people make things huh. just randomly type in some basic knowledge and gets approved while I am working so hard and get rejected. There are people who work hard. Just approve it AyanPlush (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wise words... good job motivating me AyanPlush (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, there are places to do what it is you are trying to do, Wikipedia isn't one of them. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ill try to do my best. For now on. I'll be using Wikitubia or Wikipedia AyanPlush (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 41.223.73.224

How can I make my article accepted 41.223.73.224 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have zero usable sources. This is not acceptable for any article, let alone one on a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:05, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 41.223.73.177

My article was rejected 41.223.73.177 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, because there isn't the slight suggestion of, let alone evidence for, notability of any flavour. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't start a new thread with each question or comment, just add to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting to write an article without first finding several high-quality sources is like starting to build a house without first surveying the plot to check that it is suitable to build on: it will quite possibly fall down, and all your work will be wasted. ColinFine (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:29, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:85FD:8100:7D21:1545:5AFE:8A51

in my opinion, my article was good, i used a known wikipipedia article, to be sure that the lay-out was correct, enough references, an biografy, career , so i don't know what else i can do that my article would be accepted 2A02:A03F:85FD:8100:7D21:1545:5AFE:8A51 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no evidence that they pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR? Theroadislong (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rat World is basically a one person operation run by Jennifer Cheuk, with help of a designer/business helper. Although the article says a few nice things about Wills, it is not a reliable source and it is not significant coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first reference is to a promotional show business page that she controls. That is not an independendent source. Your second reference is to a YouTube video clip, which is not a reliable source, not independent of Wills and not significant coverage of Wills. What is required here are references to multiple reliable sourced that are fully independent of Wills and devote significant coverage to Wills. Cullen328 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in five episodes of a soap opera with over 7,900 episodes is not a major role. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:32, 2 September 2024 review of submission by 2603:8000:BE00:373E:B85F:3CE4:B6BF:2122

Thank you for your feedback regarding the submission of the Wikipedia article for Randal Wells. I appreciate the guidelines provided on the notability of music-related topics, and I would like to respectfully request reconsideration of this submission based on additional context and references.

Notability and Significant Coverage:

BMI Recognition: Randal Wells, formerly known as Random Wright, was recognized by Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), a major American music rights organization, as a "Know Them Now" artist. This designation is not merely a passing mention but a significant recognition of emerging talent in the music industry. BMI's acknowledgment of Randal Wells positions him among artists who are considered influential in shaping contemporary music.

MTV's Making the Band 4: Randal Wells' participation in MTV’s Making the Band 4 provided him with national exposure and led to his transition from local to national recognition. The show, produced by Sean Combs (P. Diddy), was a significant platform that launched the careers of several artists who are now notable figures in the music industry. Wells' inclusion in this show underscores his relevance and notability within the entertainment industry.

Legislative Impact in Florida: Randal Wells’ work as the President of Florida's State Youth Advisory Board led to the successful lobbying for the "Road to Independence Act," which extended benefits for foster youth. This legislative achievement is documented in Florida's legislative archives and recognized by various child welfare organizations. This work highlights his impact beyond the music industry and his significant role in advocacy.

Media Coverage: Randal Wells has been featured in multiple reputable media outlets:

FOX LA's Community Champions: Wells was honored for his contributions to foster care advocacy and his work in the entertainment industry. The recognition from a major news outlet like FOX LA provides significant coverage of his impact.

ThisIsRnB and Singersroom: Both platforms have featured in-depth articles on Wells, discussing his music and his journey. These articles provide more than just passing mentions, offering detailed coverage of his career and influence. Recording Academy and Grammy Awards: Randal Wells, under his former name Random Wright, has been featured by the Recording Academy and has appeared at the Grammy Awards, with his image being captured and distributed by Getty Images. His connection with the Recording Academy, combined with his Grammy appearance, further cements his notability within the music industry.

Request for Consideration: Given the significant recognition by BMI, national exposure through MTV, impactful advocacy work documented by the state of Florida, and detailed media coverage in reputable sources, I believe that Randal Wells meets the criteria for notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. I have provided reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject and demonstrate substantial coverage of his achievements.

I kindly request that the submission be reconsidered with the above context in mind. Randal Wells' contributions to both music and foster care advocacy are notable, and his story is one of resilience, creativity, and impact. His inclusion in Wikipedia would provide valuable information to those seeking to learn about artists and advocates who have significantly influenced their fields.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Randal Wells 2603:8000:BE00:373E:B85F:3CE4:B6BF:2122 (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Attempting to write an autobiography is strongly discouraged and almost never successful. Your draft is highly self-promotional and your post here is highly self-promotional. Promotion, advertising, marketing, public relations and all similar behaviors are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please post this content on social media platforms, not on this encyclopedia, because the neutral point of view is a core content policy here. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have had the article edited by a 3rd party as to not indicate bias. If someone says they have passed legislation, appeared on film and television, musical works are being played on television, and released multiple musical projects, I'm not understanding how that does not qualify as reputable or self promotion. It just seems like bias to not publish. 2603:8000:BE00:373E:B85F:3CE4:B6BF:2122 (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone working under your direction is tantamount to you doing the edits yourself. I will look at your sources shortly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
The only sources that do anything are related to the KITS awards, and even then they're so lacking they're effectively useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You write I have had the article edited by a 3rd party as to not indicate bias and yet your draft still contains overtly promotional language like Born in Bridgeport, Connecticut, Wells overcame a tumultuous childhood in the foster care system to become a recognized artist and passionate community activist and His persistence paid off and Wells found solace in music, writing, and singing as a way to escape the difficulties of his reality and His persistence paid off and which was well-received and highlighted his journey through the music industry and fueled his passion for advocacy and he played a pivotal part in lobbying for and passing a law. If reliable, independent sources discuss your tumultuous childhood and your passion and your persistence and your solace and the difficulties of your reality and your persistence paying off and that your music was well received and that you are on a journey through the music industry and that you played a pivotal part in passing legislation, then why aren't there references to reliable sources saying all those things in the draft? Otherwise, it comes off as if you are trying to tell your life story in this encyclopedia, and that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. That is the purpose of social media instead. So, your 3rd party seems unable to detect self-promotional content that experienced Wikipedia editors can detect in one minute. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:05, 2 September 2024 review of submission by Mickfir

The draft for this page has been repeatedly denied due to "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions)" - This is an independent film - the references in the draft include 2 links to independent news articles. All other references rely primarily on IMDB pages. There are references that make use of the film's official website, however these are almost always supported by IMDB links too. Other than IMDB and independent news articles, I fail to see what else can validate this film's existence. I fear the reviewer who has denied this draft has not taken the time to accurately read through the supplied sources. Mickfir (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mickfir: We can't use IMDb (no editorial oversight). Your other sources are the production studio (useless for notability: connexion to subject) and two non-sequiturs. You have no in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-film news/review sources that discuss the film at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and editorial oversight, and so you don't have anything to base an article off of. A plot synopsis is not an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will adding more independent news articles that explicitly mention the film help? Or will they too be ignored (as the current two have so far) ? 203.214.60.17 (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mere mentions will not work. They need to discuss the film at length. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the claim IMDB references are unacceptable - is dubious. For example, the 4th reference on Avengers Endgame is and IMDB citation.
Avengers: Endgame#References Mickfir (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that reference is to the IMDb-owned Box Office Mojo, as should be obvious by actually looking at the link. Box Office Mojo is considered a reliable source for box office receipts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mickfir, notable films have almost always been extensively reviewed by professional film critics and those reviews have been published in newspapers and magazines that routinely run movie reviews. This film came out only three weeks ago. Perhaps it is too soon at this point. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

00:51, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 2601:C4:C601:29E0:1DAD:B357:432D:48

it is from the producer's twitter so how is it unreliable? 2601:C4:C601:29E0:1DAD:B357:432D:48 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the decline reason to be a bit misleading and I understand your confusion. It is perfectly fine to cite the producer's tweets for his working process of the song/his opinions/etc, but it wouldn't be reliable for claims that involve third parties. See WP:ABOUTSELF for more info.
However, your draft still needs independent sources. The producer's own tweets are not independent from the song, and only represents the creator's point of view. See WP:42 for more info. Ca talk to me! 01:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please familiarize yourself with the notability guideline for songs. You must show that this song meets that guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:44, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Hollyshi

Based on my current draft, I wonder how I can ensure that the content I draft for a Wikipedia page adheres to academic citation standards, particularly in verifying claims and using reliable sources. Many thanks. Hollyshi (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hollyshi: okay, the good news is, this person is almost certainly notable, with a named chair at Columbia, h-index of 70+, etc.
The bad news is, some of the information is inadequately referenced, including the claim of the named chair, which is only backed up by his own CV. (I can provide a list of problems with the referencing, if you'd like, or you can wait for the next reviewer's feedback.)
Moreover, the article is written in a promotional tone, and with oddly non-enyclopaedic expressions throughout. I give just one example:

Morris was born in New York City in 1964 to a family with origins in western Ireland. They later moved “upstate” to the Catskill mountains, near the site of the Woodstock festival. The swirl of subcultures there piqued interests in cultural worldviews. He and his partners at the local public high school were surprise winners of the state debate championships.

I would recommend tigheting up the language and making it more factual and neutral.
Finally, what is your relationship with this person? I've posted a message on your talk page about conflicts of interest, please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:50, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Yves Martin des Taillades

Hi, I would like to know how to edit this article so that it fits Wikipedia's requirements. I think that many people would like to read about Silvi on Wikipedia. Thanks! Best, Yves Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yves Martin des Taillades: I assume you know the history of Draft:Silvi Rouskin, since this has been created under a slightly different spelling although the draft and the sources all refer to her as 'Silvi'?
In any case, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Yes, these two pages are referring to the same person.
The reasons of the rejection are unclear to me. Could you tell me what's missing? Silvi is a famous professor, most of them have a wikipedia page so that people can know what are their key contributions.
Thanks for your work! Best, Yves Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to add more references to the article if that's any helpful. If it's just that Silvi isn't famous enough (yet?), we can just wait for her to get a few more awards to re-submit the article? I'll appreciate any sort of guidance on this. Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yves Martin des Taillades: the reason for the rejection (and I'm speculating here, as I wasn't the one who rejected this) was that this has been created at this and other title(s) before, involving various problems with paid editing etc., so the reviewer perhaps felt it wasn't necessary to give this the usual multiple reviews before pulling the plug.
There is no evidence of notability in the draft, not of WP:GNG type, and not WP:NACADEMIC either. I think you need to pass on the message to your friend to forget about having a Wikipedi article for a while, at least until she achieves solid notability (such as a named chair, or membership in a highly selective professional body; awards don't really do the trick, unless they are significant enough to be notable in their own right, and even then it's questionable). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DoubleGrazing for the detailed feedback! That's really insightful. I'll pass the message to Silvi. Have a nice day! Yves Martin des Taillades (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:11, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Salimkanbour

Hello, my page gets rejected every time, how to solve this issue?

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. Salimkanbour (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Salimkanbour There are, in addition, sections without any referencing. We require citations for facts you state. The tone is of a magazine article, not an encyclopaedia article. We require flat, neutral, "dull-but-worthy" prose. My advice is to cut, cut, and cut again. Lose anything where you have no reference 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 146.255.74.38

Is a list of publications considered relevant for an article about an organisation? 146.255.74.38 (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, Wikipedia articles should not be seen as comprehensive logs of a person or organisation's output and other doings; so on that basis, I would say probably not relevant. If you do intend to include some, keep it to the most noteworthy items only, and even then it would be good to see some context, not just a list for its own sake. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined because it needs a comprehensive rewrite to lose the magazine style phraseology. I have said so in my decline 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to reveal which of the sources are consider unreliable or dependent? 146.255.74.38 (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please don't start a new thread, just add to the exiting one.)
It's not necessarily the case that any particular source is unreliable. It's more (as I see it, at any rate) a case of there being a lot of unreferenced narrative, which suggests a source other than an independent third party. An example:

The historical context of the views of the ACC was the ever closer and wider European political cooperation, particularly as this process condensed in EU institutions and in the continuous EU enlargements in the decades after the Fall of the Berlin Wall.

Whose view does this represent? When the source isn't cited, it becomes Wikipedia's view, which isn't appropriate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Sampaul1710

how to get it approved Sampaul1710 (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sampaul1710: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why is it rejected? all the information is true and given with citations Sampaul1710 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said the information is not true. Much of the draft is unsourced and it reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article that neutrally summarizes what independent reliable sources choose to say about her, showing how she is a notable actress as Wikipedia defines it. The awards described do not contribute to notability as they do not have articles themselves(like Academy Award or Filmfare Award). 331dot (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:33, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Root Equus

I need help in identifying which parts of the article need citing. Thank you. Root Equus (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Root Equus: see WP:MINREF. Basically, whenever a reader might challenge or even wonder if something is really true, or what source a statement is based on, there should be the source cited next to it. This is especially important in articles on living people (WP:BLP). Also, all private personal and family details, such as DOB, must be clearly supported by reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:19, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Sarajmartin24

Hello, Thank you for reviewing our submission. We understand that the article was declined due to the following reasons:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources." "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." We have carefully reviewed your feedback and have made further adjustments to the article to ensure it is written in a neutral and academic tone. We have also ensured that the references used are from external, reputable sources such as Forbes, Cinco Días, Bolsamanía, FUNDS PEOPLE, Invertia, and Corresponsables—all of which are well-established and reliable media outlets that have covered the event in depth.

We are unsure what additional steps are required to meet the criteria for reliable sources, as the current references are from recognized and reputable media organizations that provide independent coverage of the event. Could you please provide us with more specific guidance on why these sources are not considered adequate?

We would greatly appreciate more detailed feedback on how we can further improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards, Sarajmartin24 (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wp.ramesh wiki

Hi can anyone tell me Which changes actually done in this page. Wp.ramesh wiki (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1243772992"