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 Wikiproject2024 (talk | contribs) at 03:44, 9 September 2024 (Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Georgia_Rotary_Student_Program_(GRSP)). 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


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]
Thx, very helpful. I was (at least I) was looking in a complete different direction to try and figure out what was the problem of this article. 146.255.74.38 (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, very helpful 146.255.74.38 (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinstalled the cutaway, in accordance with the latest reviewers, also to let the next editor start from the most complete version of the article. As I wrote, I give up for now. I takes someone smarter to identify the right balance between your reviewers and guidelines and rules. Just curious: what is the "group" referred to by the latest reviewer? 146.255.74.193 (talk) 06:02, 14 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]

@Sarajmartin24: this draft has a dozen paragraphs of content, only three of which are referenced – where is the rest of the information coming from? And, not to put too fine a point on it, how do we know any of it is true? That's why referencing is required, so that the information can be verified. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:47, 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]

@Wp.ramesh wiki: did you read the decline notice and the accompanying comments? You need to cite sources (that actually work) which show that the subject is notable, either per the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You also need to disclose your conflict of interest regarding this film (the same way as you've already done on your talk page regarding another subject). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:58, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 清风与明月

Hello. I really want to create an article about this movie, but there may be not enough reference materials. Can I ask if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it? Thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered below. Please don't start multiple threads. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 清风与明月

Hello. I really want to create an article about this movie, but there may be not enough reference materials. Can I ask if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it? Thank you. 清风与明月 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@清风与明月: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by "if I can use the article so that capable people can expand it?" Other users can edit this draft, not just you, if that's what you meant.
But if, as you say, adequate sources don't exist, then this film is probably not notable enough for the draft to be accepted. Regardless of who edits it, and how "capable" they are; it's not possible to magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that maybe other people will see it and become interested and continue to edit and improve this entry. 清风与明月 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@清风与明月: yes, that is a possibility, at least in theory, because drafts are publicly available on the internet. In practice, however, very few people will come across a draft, since it doesn't show up in any searches (within or without Wikipedia), isn't linked to from other articles, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but there's enough people who treat their draft as a sacred cow that we're generally unwilling to edit another's draft. It's not worth torquing off the draft author. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you want others to work on it, to pass this process you need to demonstrate notability, even if the article is not 100% complete. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 3 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:1210:7E33:F400:9CA0:A1A4:11BF:8013

I can't submit the draft for review, because the catch comes again after its entered. Can anybody help? 2A02:1210:7E33:F400:9CA0:A1A4:11BF:8013 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could submit this for you, but then I'd have to decline it for lack of notability, so there seems little point.
We need to see significant coverage of this organisation, in multiple (3+) secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject and of each other. At the moment this draft cites at most one such source. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:12, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of programmes English Series (Malaysian premiere) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wynnsantiy: it won't be automatically deleted for six months, but I can't guarantee that no one will request deletion earlier.
Was it you who created all those drafts on the Malaysian premieres of various US television shows, which I rejected? They were largely copied from the main articles on the respective shows, with only the Malaysian broadcast information added. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I for one don't see the need for such articles, otherwise we could potentially end up on 200 variations on the theme for every TV show that has ever been shown internationally. If you wish to add the Malaysian broadcast details to the main article, that might still not be a very good idea, but it would be better at least.
I also don't see why we would need a list like this, of who shows what on Malaysian TV. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a TV guide, or a repository of indiscriminate information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:19, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of Slot English Series On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Wynnsantiy

Wikipedia Please do not delete a Draft:List of Slot Saranghaeyo On 2 TV2 (Malaysia) for Six months. Wynnsantiy (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. And please don't post a new thread for every one of those TV show articles I mentioned. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 3 September 2024 review of submission by DzHaruna

The article rejected and I want help on how I can improve it to be accepted according to Wikipedia standards DzHaruna (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejected" means that the reviewer believes that this cannot be made into an acceptable article, usually because adequate sources simply do not exist to estabish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you beieve that you have several sources which are all three of reliable (eg not social media), independent (not written, published, or commissioned by Gusau or his associates, and not based on his words) and contain significant coverage of him (not just a passing mention), then you should approach the rejecting reviewr SafariScribe. But I advise you not to bother them unless you are 100% sure that you have adequate sources to demonstrate notability. Look at all your sources critically according to WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 3 September 2024 review of submission by OldPolandUpdates

Several Wikipedia articles exist for Polish cathedrals of this size and age. Can you help me understand what makes this one insignificant? OldPolandUpdates (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OldPolandUpdates: we don't assess drafts on the basis of whether articles exist on comparable topics. A draft has to stand on its own two legs, meeting all relevant policies and guidelines. This one was first declined twice for insufficient referencing, and then a further three times for lack of evidence of notability, before being finally rejected. That's not saying the subject is "insignificant", just that the sources cited don't justify its inclusion in the encyclopaedia. That's my reading of it, at least; I'm pinging the rejecting reviewer Courtesy ping: SafariScribe in case they have anything more to add. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response. I worded my original question in that way because the article rejection stated, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." So, the subject was indeed considered to be not notable.
The core references establishing the existence and features of this cathedral are all academic or from literature. My NYT source was deemed to be a passing reference, but I have kept it in because it mostly describes an aspect of the history of the cathedral and is not used to fundamentally establish the existence of the cathedral. Should I remove that source and the corresponding history?
For this draft, I also used relevant sources that appear on other published cathedral articles ("Die polnischen Kathedralen"). Does the rejection of this article have implications for all articles that use that particular source?
I am new to this process, so I heavily appreciate any response. OldPolandUpdates (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OldPolandUpdates: apologies, I will try to explain better, without using unnecessary jargon.
'Notability' in the Wikipedia context means 'worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia' (my words, but more or less accurate). Given that Wikipedia's role is to summarise what reliable sources have previously published about a subject, it follows that if such sources don't exist, or they aren't enough to satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, then it isn't possible to publish an article on the subject.
There are some exceptions to WP:GNG. The one applicable to buildings is WP:NGEO for geographical features, which among other things contains the provision WP:GEOFEAT whereby buildings covered by official heritage protection/registration are automatically assumed notable. Might this apply to the cathedral in question, do you know?
Aside from all that, I actually think, for what it's worth, that a cathedral is likely to be more or less inherently notable, for its status in the hierarchy of religious buildings, not to mention its historical status as an obvious focal point of urban society, cityscape, etc. For that reason, I probably wouldn't have rejected this draft myself, even if I might have declined it for lack of evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:53, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Snrizvi

I re-submitted with recommended edits and updates. have not heard back. Snrizvi (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snrizvi: this draft has only been submitted once. It was declined shortly afterwards, following which you have made a couple of edits, but have not resubmitted it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,
I clicked "resubmit" button under the first objection light blue wondow. Should I resubmit as fresh new article ? Please guide. Snrizvi (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snrizvi Just press the blue Resubmit button and wait while the system does it. The waiting is important. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snrizvi: The content of this draft falls into a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinent). This reads more like a research essay than an encyclopaedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand " contentious" and "research essay". This topic is been a current issue and have effected 7% population of Pakistan. Political party representing these 7% people of Pakistan has been talking about it. This party is being mentioned in Wikipedia. I have linked it. When you say "research" what do you mean by it ? How it can be wikipedia article? Earlier other gentleman mentioned "tone" and "independant" references. I have made it totally neutral with realiable academc refernces to support the content. What's stopping it to get published. Do not understand Snrizvi (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should consist of neutrally-written summaries of what reliable sources say. It should not contain any argumentation or conclusions, with the possible exception of summaries of arguments and conclusions wholly contained within one of the sources. (It could contain several of these, but should not contain any kind of synthesis or comparison between the sources). ColinFine (talk) 23:02, 3 :CTOP|September 2024 (UTC)
The draft reads like an essay, not like an encyclopedia article. I had to read several paragraphs into it to even begin to understand what "Matruka Sindh" even means. An encyclopedia article identifies and describes the topic from the first sentence without a meandering lead-in. As for a contentious topic, that applies to all coverage on Wikipedia of the ongoing and historical conflicts between India and Pakistan. Cullen328 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Ailintom

Dear community. Many thanks for the feedback. I was tempted to think that the topic of the article meets criterion 5 of WP:ACADEMIC: the person was elected full professor (distinguished professorships and named chairs are not common in Germany) at a major German research university (U15 member), as confirmed by a university webpage referenced in the draft in question, and being the only professor of Egyptology in Mainz the person is thus considered a chair of Egyptology (Lehrstuhlinhaber in German). Does this not qualify for criterion 5? Ailintom (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ailintom I agree. Accepted 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Davetheirishguy

I do not understand how a wholly subjective understanding of what constitutes "signifigant" mentioning allows someone to simply delete a submission, I am an experienced veteran journalist, these citations are from purely editorial, journalistic content published by legitimate, respected 3rd party outlets. Where or who do I seek for recourse? Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davetheirishguy: If you're here to relitigate the Articles for Deletion discussion then WP:Deletion review is that-a-way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davetheirishguy: As to your sources, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Of the sources I can assess, one is borderline and the rest are useless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not remotely clear what makes this person notable in Wikipedia terms? Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the 3 articles you can't access are actually the ones that contain the actual journalism. question - is there a simple way to post unwalled versions? Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704204304574543462129137096?st=fbpdwtr9aa7b9lv&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink Davetheirishguy (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link is still walled, and my comment about it being unlikely to be about Hogg stands given the headline. But I will note that if those three sources are "the ones that contain the actual journalism" then we have a more significant problem here with source assessment, given how much chaff there is relative to the potential wheat. Again, pretty much every source I could assess was unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. Paywalled sources are acceptable, and it is conceivable that those three will clinch notability for Hogg. Jeske (who was not the reviewer who declined it) is giving you his estimation of your sources, without going in to look at those.
But now that you have posted an open link to it, I can see that, as Jeske suspected, it does not contain in-depth discussion of Hogg. ColinFine (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, now that I have a more clearer understanding of what is meant by notability I will try to source additonal info that is appropriate for usage here. I knoe it exists, I just have to put the time/effort to locate it then rewrite the entry and resubmit. Question: how long until it is "permanently" deleted? Davetheirishguy (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davetheirishguy: Drafts are deleted as abandoned six months from the last edit made to the draft, regardless of who made the edit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new at this so I'm using this to teach myself these ways. Davetheirishguy (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is "permanently deleted" here; even if the draft is deleted, it can be recovered via WP:REFUND. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:26, 3 September 2024 review of submission by Adipratamaa25

because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. Adipratamaa25 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adipratamaa25: That means it needs to be rewritten from scratch without plagiarising content from elsewhere on the web. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can you rewrite it without getting a violation Adipratamaa25 (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

01:43, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Puran Chettri Sikkim

Why can't it be published? What are the requirements for passing the review? Also what do I need to do? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puran Chettri Sikkim, this draft appears to be an autobiography. Please be aware that autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia and self-promotion is not permitted. Your references are to articles that you have written which are of zero value in establishing notability. Otherwise, every aspiring journalist who has had half a dozen articles published would be notable, which is ridiculous. What would be required are multiple references to reliable sources completely independent of you that devote significant coverage to you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:29, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Bulawan Museo

I have made changes, and changed the article to a neutral point of view. upon submitting and reviewing, the changes were not made. the changes I took time to do, did not register when I clicked resubmit. what to do? Bulawan Museo (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:41, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Puran Chettri Sikkim

The reason I was rejected is that this topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. So what do I need to do next? How can I pass the review? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do at this point rejection is the end of the road for a draft. You were deemed not to meet the criteria for inclusion to a global encyclopedia on notable topics. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't it meet the standard? Some of the content included in Wikipedia is very ordinary, but it is included. Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen answered it above and three editors answered in the reviews of the draft. Wikipedia goes by WP:NOTABILITY and you have provided no sources that indicate that the subject of this article (presumably you) passes either the general notability guideline WP:GNG or the more specific one WP:AUTHOR. Just having published articles does not establish notability, and even if it did, there are serious questions about the sources; the first one is a letter to editor, the last one appears to be your blog, and I'm unconvinced that Storify has a reputation as being a verifiable, reliable source (and at least two of them Storify has a disclaimer about their involvement). CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do I need to provide more proof to flesh out my content? Also, if Storify cannot be used as proof. but I also use Sikkim Express as proof in my content? are both media outlets not allowed to serve as proof? Puran Chettri Sikkim (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best thing that you can do is go on about your career as if Wikipedia did not exist and abandon this effort. Almost all people who attempt to write about themselves on Wikipedia do not succeed. This is why it is highly discouraged(though not absolutely forbidden), see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article by you can not be used to support your claim to notability, so it's not a usable source. For there to be an article about you, there must be independent, reliable sources, writing about you in detail. Not things written by you or passing mentions of your name. To have an article about you on Wikipedia, your best course of action is to continue to advance in your career, and should you become notable enough, sure someone will eventually write an article about you. Publicizing your work in your growing career is suitable for social media, not for here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:49, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Bulawan Museo

how can I have the biography be approved. I have changed it to a neutral point of view, I have added reliable sources. I just do not get why it can't be submitted? 

Bulawan Museo (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every sentence is peppered with fawning praise.
"esteemed incumbent Governor of Camarines"
"where his leadership was marked by notable achievements and accolades"
"Governor Padilla remains steadfast in his commitment to effecting positive change"
"He is a father of three wonderful kids and a loving husband"
That's just a very small sample, and all inappropriate. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. now I get it. Thanks. I will rephrase everything and recreate it. Bulawan Museo (talk) 03:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

my draft received following revert:- 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 people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. 

 Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where and how to put a subject that qualifies for a Wikipedia article Adwivedi78 (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 4 September 2024 review of submission by CreativeWikiWorks

Please have a look if every sufficient for submission. Thank you CreativeWikiWorks (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:17, 4 September 2024 review of submission by SwimmersSocial

Hi i have just used the assistance of AI to finish and clean up the page but i have also spoken to the Jon (the perosn its about) and he has given statements and said it is all good and all correct 

SwimmersSocial (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tone is totally inappropriate and all entirely unsourced. Please disclose your conflict of interest too. Theroadislong (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SwimmersSocial: with all due respect, whether 'Jon' approves of what you've written doesn't matter; we need to see everything clearly supported by reliable and independent published sources. In fact, the entire draft should consist of a summary of such sources' coverage of this person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:42, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

What is the current status of my page draft. Is there anything else that I have to do Adwivedi78 (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The status is indicated at the top of the draft; it was declined. Please read that message, and the pages linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:02, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

How get my draft article approved 

Adwivedi78 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Adwivedi78

Draft declined citing "Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference" 

Adwivedi78 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from starting a new entry for each question. That's four you've opened up in the space fo a few hours.
To answer your questions, no, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia. To get your draft article approved, as you were told by the reviewer, you have to demonstrate notability (WP:N) using reliable sources (WP:RS) that cover the subject in detail. The Wikipedia sources are inappropriate and several other sources do not appear to be published by an author working under serious editorial oversight. Most of the remaining sources only briefly mention the subject and do not cover the subject in detail. You should trim the article to only include the sources that appear useful under WP:RS and the article to only things covered by those sources. There's quite a bit that appears to be your opinion, or at least unsourced opinion, such as "highly appreciated," "very important role," and "very promising." CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 4 September 2024 review of submission by B.MorganUK

I believe there may have been a misunderstanding or oversight in your decision to decline my article.

1 - My article has 20 references properly cited using Wikipedia's visual editor. These 20 resources are independent, non-commercial, and published resources.

2 - While I appreciate your input, I believe that "Remittances to Pakistan", just like existing similar Wikipedia pages such as Remittances to Nepal, Remittances to Bangladesh, Remittances to India, etc., warrant a standalone article for several reasons:

Scope and Depth: Remittances are a significant economic driver for Pakistan, constituting a substantial portion of its GDP. Given the topic's importance and complexity, a dedicated article can provide a more comprehensive and in-depth analysis.

Clarity and Organization: A standalone article allows for a clearer and more organized presentation of the topic. It can delve into specific aspects of remittance flows, such as sources, recipients, and their impact on various sectors of the Pakistani economy.

Accessibility and Relevance: A dedicated article on remittances makes it easier for readers interested in this particular subject to find the information they need. It also enhances the relevance of Pakistan's economic data and analysis within the broader context of global remittance flows.

Given the aforementioned reasons, I urge you to reconsider my article for publication as a separate Wikipedia article. I will continue to enhance its content and scope over time. Thank you! B.MorganUK (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@B.MorganUK: I don't think there was any misunderstanding, at least not on the reviewer's part. There are several paragraphs entirely without any referencing - where is all that info coming from? And note that MRC Pakistan and Statista are not considered reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for highlighting exactly what issue caused that decision. I considered the highlighted resources as official and authoritative. Also, I didn't exactly know that we have to cite references for each and every passage. I'll improve my article accordingly and resubmit it for publishing today. B.MorganUK (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@B.MorganUK: strictly speaking, you don't have to support every single statement with a reference. You do, however, have to support every statement that someone might challenge or question, and given that you cannot predict what someone might challenge, in reality everything (beyond self-evident 'sky is blue' type statements) must be referenced. Also, everything you say should come from a reliable source, so why not tell us what that source is; what's the harm in that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I agree 100% - that's understandable and logical. I'll ensure this all in my next edit today. B.MorganUK (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:04, 4 September 2024 review of submission by 2seriouslyblah

I have rewritten this article a couple of times but the draft still hasn't been approved. I'm not sure how I can edit the text to have a more neutral point of view as I have already rewritten it and added more citations and took out any language that could sound even remotely close to not neutral. Any help/edits are welcome and appreciated! 2seriouslyblah (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2seriouslyblah: you don't happen to work in marketing, by any chance, do you? ;) (No, don't answer that.)
This draft still has a lot of hyperbole, such as "dedicated", "fundamental linkages", etc., as well as just corporate jargon like "WFD operates under a set of guiding principles, emphasizing the importance of innovative design, accessibility, scalability, data-driven insights, strategic collaborations, and user feedback to enhance digital health solutions." That may all be factually true and correct, but it needs to be said in a more factual manner. Aim for 'dry to the point of boring', rather than 'buzzword bingo'. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2seriouslyblah, your draft reads much more like marketing brochure than a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Consider this wording: Utilizing digital technologies, WFD strives to disseminate comprehensible information and connect individuals with pertinent resources is just wordy blather that seems to mean that they have some computers and a website. Write concisely, directly and neutrally, eliminating any trace of promotional content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Jack Tarre

I'm seeking help moving this article to the Article space. I'm a new, first time writer for Wiki. I penned this piece in March of this year and have done extensive editing to remove any extraneous info and to tighten up the references. It was rejected yesterday and I can't see what needs to be done at this point. Thank you in advance! JT Jack Tarre (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack Tarre: this draft has been declined, and you wish to override that and publish it regardless? While that is indeed your right, given that your account is autoconfirmed, it's not necessarily advisable. We don't decline drafts for the fun of it, there is invariably a justification. And just because you don't see what needs improving seems to me like a poor reason to go against the reviewers' feedback. But if you wish to move this into the main article space, that is your prerogative: you do that from 'Tools' menu > 'Move', and then in the dialog box that opens, changing the name space from Draft to (Article) and saving it. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just be aware that bypassing the review process means you accept any consequences that arise as a result of that, including deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the timely reply. I'm not interested in ignoring and overriding the standard Wiki process of approval. I would like to follow the rules and get the best, most accurate article published. At this point it seems to be the sources that are the sticking point. My thinking here is to remove all the sources except the two newspapers, the one TV news program, and the online news/entertainment zine.
Your thoughts on this, please? Suggestions greatly appreciated! Jack Tarre (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
While that is probably not what you want to hear, my experience is that when a new editor plunges straight into trying to create an article, they usually have a frustrating time, partly because they can't understand the feedback they are getting.
If you had just taken up tennis, would you enter a major competition? And if you did, and experts told you why you were not being successful, would you expect to understand their explanation? ColinFine (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:38, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Emmatrax

you have rejected my article saying it is in an essay format so can i get the article format 

Emmatrax (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmatrax: Maybe you're talking about a different draft? The sandbox was declined as having no content what-so-ever (i.e. blank). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmatrax: As I mentioned at your user talk page, your draft appears to be original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Twentyone1111

Hi, I used credible sources and corroborated the information where possible. Please assist. Thanks Twentyone1111 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twentyone1111: you may have used some credible sources, but you also have numerous citations of Instagram, which is emphatically not a reliable source, as well as of Amazon, which is a retailer and not arguably a source at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Would it be better to reference the book and the book catalogue number where the information is from, instead of putting the bookstore link? it makes sense. Twentyone1111 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Twentyone1111: The books you have mostly cited are two self-published works by closely related authors (Liliane Arnault Berkely and Marie Arnault Berkely). These books are not reliable sources. The draft you have created purports to be about a "Queen of the Royal Wright Family", but there is insufficient context to understand who the Royal Wright Family is. Further investigation shows that there is a John Roper Wright who was created a baronet in 1920. This baronetcy passed to Wright's son William Charles, but then became extinct with William Charles' death. The draft also claims that Dillys is descended from Dinuzulu, the last officially recognized monarch of the Zulu people. Presumably Dillys is now claiming his title, but Instagram and self-published books of questionable scholarship are insufficient sources for Wikipedia to publish such a claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 4 September 2024 review of submission by I have a great knowledge

Can someone help me in like creating the introduction and taking out the contents from the references? I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I have a great knowledge: what do you mean by "taking out the contents from the references"? Are you asking us to summarise the sources for you? That's something you are expected to do, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk.
When you're citing offline sources, you need to provide sufficient bibliographical detail to enable the source to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice on this. And the ISBN number in the last source doesn't seem to work, so I couldn't access it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just straight-up Google the Number without the ISBN and the book will be there, and if you see the calculator, just scroll down until you see a website that has the name "Research Gate" and when you enter, it will say the name of the author and the publisher. However, its in Mizo. And by 'taking out the contents from the references', I meant writing what the sources say about them(the Lusei) I have a great knowledge (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@I have a great knowledge: The onus is on you to do that, and for the record, this falls into a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinental tribes and castes). Note that we cannot trust anything hosted on ResearchGate (no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok I have a great knowledge (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:08, 4 September 2024 review of submission by 75.82.0.68

Hello, my submission was declined by "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified". I'm confused as to how publications like The Los Angeles Times are not reliable? 75.82.0.68 (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times is reliable, but that piece is an interview, meaning it is not an independent source- a person speaking about themselves. Interviews do not establish notability; they can be used for other purposes, but not that. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, we do not judge a source solely by its outlet; we have to read the content of the source as well. And as 331dot says, an interview published in The Los Angeles Times is as useless for notability as an interview conducted by Borat Sagdiyev. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your sources - and all of those which are to establish notability - must meet all three criteria of reliability, independence, and significant coverage. See WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 09:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:07, 4 September 2024 review of submission by Jeswanth2

This is genuine article and the person we are trying to bring in front of the world is the spokesperson of 3rd national party of the biggest democratic country with 1.4 billion population. So please help us to get this done. Jeswanth2 (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeswanth2: this draft has been rejected, as it presents no evidence that the person is notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? 331dot (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADVOCACY of any kind is not permitted in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

06:09, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Teleprostir

Hi guys. Could someone help to fix some issues to approve this page? Teleprostir (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection with him? You took a picture of him at an awards ceremony, so you had access to him. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:42, 5 September 2024 review of submission by CreativeWikiWorks

Can some check my draft for approval, earlier it was checked immediately and rejected in speed of light.

Right now it is pending.

Appreciate your cooperation. Thank you CreativeWikiWorks (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it. Asking for a review will not speed the process. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:22, 5 September 2024 review of submission by 2001:56A:70F6:CF00:5029:199B:20D:1730

I was helping my friend Orysia, write this Wikipedia page. This is my first time writing a page and I'm having trouble with the edits. Is there someone who can direct me in where I went wrong so I can submit it without the risk of it being deleted?

Thank you so much. Steph 2001:56A:70F6:CF00:5029:199B:20D:1730 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. You should declare a conflict of interest on your user page(click the link for instructions). Being declined does not result in deletion.
Note that the awards you list in the draft will not contribute towards notability; awards only contribute to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Please read the decline message, and the pages linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:51, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Entreprete

I want to create wikipedia page for a organization to give information about it. But I keeps getting declined Entreprete (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Entreprete It is prohibited to promote an organisation on Wikipedia. This agency is not notable enough to merit an article, and the draft will soon be deleted. Qcne (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Entreprete That's because there isn't the slightest hint of notability, let alone any evidence of it. And at least the first draft was pure promotion, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
What is your relationship with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You've crossed the border from mere promotion to spamming. Stop now, or expect to be blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:49, 5 September 2024 review of submission by DotCoder

Are there enough secondary sources? DotCoder (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DotCoder That is what your next review is for. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Hailneum

Hi there,

I am requesting support in updating both the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks and International Neural Network Society pages.

I have two additional sources that I would like to include, but I am nervous about the pages being removed. https://cis.ieee.org/committees/history-committee/history/evolution https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4307059

Please advise on how I should proceed.

Thank you in advance for your support. Hailneum (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hailneum The sources you are offering are associated with the organization that puts on the conference. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources like news reports say about the conference, not what those putting it on say about it. If all you have is sources associated with the conference, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:01, 5 September 2024 review of submission by Bintyamin20248

recommend me the actual template for this article as well as help me to improve this article to get approval. Bintyamin20248 (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to be co-editors. If you want this draft to pass this process, you need to do the work and demonstrate that he is notable. Interviews do not establish notability, nor do awards that don't have articles themselves (like Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
understood. thank you Bintyamin20248 (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

recommend me the actual template for this article as well as help me to improve this article to get approval. i cite this person top newspaper interviews article as well as his organisation newspaper article about his social contribution where his name is mentioned. need to learn more from wikipedia experts for gettinf the approval. thank you 🙏 Bintyamin20248 (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread with every post, just edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, interviews do not establish notability. We want to know what others say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
writing an article need effort actually thats why i asked several question to experts regarding this article my mext article will be about casa loma an heritage of canada before jumping another article i try to learn more actually. by the way i cite others news in this articles not about only his interview actually. here it is "Zillul Karim's effort to enrich kids and families with new idea | The Asian Age Online, Bangladesh. thanks. Bintyamin20248 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:37, 5 September 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

Hi Can someone please advise. I am working on this article, and I do believe this person is noteworthy of an article. this artist has had achievements, is pushing boundaries in an arena, or new artistic space. Has notable credits, articles written about them. . in layman's, has more "creds" than a lot of other articles written on artists in same arena. I believe a first article was removed due to not enough information, or references. the second was mine, which I rewrote to follow suit with Wikipedia format. the intent was not to have it look like an advertising, but contain a lot of "emotionally persuasive wording" so I listened to notes, and rewrote. please advise Jana JanaFerrume (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, something that you would not be aware of. You seem to have a connection to this topic, what is it? 331dot (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

02:17, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Limmidy

To be clear, this is not my article. I recently saw this get moved back into the draft space, resubmitted with no changes, then someone with 10 edits forced it back into the mainspace. This doesn't seem appropriate. Any ideas? Limmidy (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Limmidy: I agree, that move wasn't appropriate, the article looks a bit dodgy, and I reckon something's off with the account who moved it, too. But it's technically NPP's problem now. <switches hats> And with my NPP hat on, let me go deal with... DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Limmidy Thank you for spotting this. The community will now decide its fate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pini Althaus. It would not have been an acceptable draft in the state it was in. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:26, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 178.141.180.87

Please, help me make my draft approved.

I am writing about a person that lives in Russia and whose scientific career was mostly in russia, so all of my sources are un Russian. Is that okay? What else should I reference to get an approval? Should I add links on the words in the text itself (as a citation) or just put everything in the reference list/ 178.141.180.87 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be in English; Russian sources are fine, as long as they're otherwise of sufficient standards in terms of reliability etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:38, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 202.166.196.35

I am new to wikipedia and i want to make a new page for Gamvir Bista , who works from 2006 and active till date and very popular in NEPAL for his conceptual music video. So can you please help me to make new page 

202.166.196.35 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get involved in co-editing, if that's what you mean by "helping". We're happy to answer questions about the draft or the review process, if you have any? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:15, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Arpitam03

Hello, this is regarding references. Would IMDB links constitute as good references? 

Arpitam03 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arpitam03: no, IMDb is user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Tendythexangsw

Help me Tendythexangsw (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't say what help it is that you are seeking, but your draft was deleted as unambiguous promotion. In looking at it, I agree.
If you work for this college, the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. You should also read conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:02, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

For this Tromanale Event there are three independent reports by different authors in the citation. I do not exactly know which references is not ok. Tromaggot (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted the draft for review, so eventually, you will get feedback from a reviewer.
In the meantime, I suggest you carefully review each of your sources against the criteria in 42.
If a source does not contain significant coverage of Tromanale, probably remove it (it is just possible that the source will contribute a significant piece of information for the article, but if the only source of that information is a passing reference, ask yourself whether that information belongs in the article at all).
If a source is not independent of Tromanale, then only uncontroversial factual information may be cited from it - and again, consider whether the information in question is encyclopaedic.
If a source is not reliable, remove it.
Only if a source meets all three criteria will it contribute to establishing notability. The majority of sources you cite should meet these criteria. ColinFine (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Anujch 2011

why my article rejected Anujch 2011 (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was clearly stated by the reviewer at the top of the draft. To expand on that, you wrote an essay, not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anujch 2011 Please read HELP:YFA which will guide your future contributions, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Moner28

Hello, I recently wrote an article on a channel on the YouTube platform that has been providing content for free since 2018. This channel is famous in the Middle East and has multiple sources. Please help in accepting this article. Thank you. Moner28 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moner28 no Declined because you have not demonstrated notability. The references all fail to verify anything other than its existence. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:35, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Way245

Draft:Patti Callahan Henry Hi guys! I'm new to reviewing and have studied up on Wikipedia's rules and took a shot at it but got denied. She is a well-known author who I think deserves a page without question! Any suggestions on helping me get published? Way245 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a connection to this person, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
You need to establish that she meet the definition of a notable author. The awards do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves (like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The rest of the content just documents her work and does not say what makes her notable. You wrote "She is known for her works in both contemporary Southern fiction...." but don't say who claims that or why. 331dot (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot So I was actually able to find articles for the awards, and actually her name shows up in that articles award page.
As for history of where she grew up and such, is her website not a credible source? Way245 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a good chance that she is notable, but you still need to summarize significant coverage of her, not just document her work. Unless there are sources that go into extensive detail about her podcast and public speaking work, and what makes it particularly important/influential, that section should probably just be removed.
Her website would be a primary source, useful for basic facts about her(her birthdate, place of residence, etc.) but does not contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Way245: I would also add that this needs to be much better referenced. There is some unreferenced information, and quite a lot of this is referenced using her own website and other non-independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and @331dot ! I will work on this. Way245 (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 6 September 2024 review of submission by Wikeditz

Hello, The comment on the submitted article states "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 people)." However, there are two chapters devoted to the subject and her work in the Handbook of Research on the Global Impacts and Roles of Immersive Media, which is a double-blind peer reviewed publication by a reputable academic publisher. A double-blind, peer-reviewed source would seem to be the definition of published, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. The whole purpose of the double-blind peer-review process is to make sure that experts in the field agree that the content is worthy of publication and inclusion in the academic cannon. It's unclear why that level of vetting and endorsement is not enough for publication on Wikipedia. Wikeditz (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikeditz Forgive me, but that is, surely, but one reference? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding, @Fiddle Faddle. The subject of the article in question is the only author in that book who has two chapters published in the single volume. One of those chapters was recently re-published by the publisher in a new volume. There is also a third double-blind peer-reviewed article published by Harvard. (So, that's 4 double-blind peer-reviewed publications of her work...) And many invite-only talks given at reputable industry conferences, like SIGGRAPH, the prestigious computer graphics conference. Her pioneering VR work has also been awarded at CES, the largest consumer electronics show in the world, among others; there it beat out competitors like ABC, CBS, Viacom, etc. Can you help me to understand either why these are not enough or how I could better mention them in the piece? I am relatively new to Wikipedia authorship and would appreciate the opportunity to learn from you and your peers. Thank you. Wikeditz (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikeditz: The source could be utterly unimpeachable and it still would not be enough, on its own, to support an article. Your main issue is you're citing things she has written, which cannot help for notability a whit. We're looking for and at what others have written about her, not what she has written about any topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Jéské Couriano.
Would something like this from the San Diego Union Tribune help?
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2020/01/22/la-jolla-news-nuggets-34/
And/or these:
https://arinsider.co/2024/03/12/spawning-into-the-irl-metaverse-at-europaparks-aurea-award/
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/virtual-reality-eve-weston-01-creates-interactive-art Wikeditz (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and @Jéské Couriano & @Fiddle Faddle I forgot to include this one:
https://yle.fi/a/74-20093885
and these that cite her as an expert:
https://digitalfrontier.com/articles/metaverse-real-estate-album-digs
https://www.techmonitor.ai/focus/working-in-the-metaverse-why-3d-virtual-collaboration-is-still-ten-years-away
https://onezero.medium.com/virtual-reality-is-still-failing-half-of-the-worlds-population-b91df3a03262
https://brown.columbia.edu/a-taxonomy-for-vr/
and this one speaks of her TV writing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/fashion/weddings/eve-weston-zachary-pincus-roth.html Wikeditz (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one has only a couple of lines on her, and so is not significant coverage, while the next two are mostly her words, so are not independent. I didn't go any further. You need to evaluate every source against the triple criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 6 September 2024 review of submission by 189.106.129.100

I'm trying to create a page for a Brazilian artist and actor called Metturo, but this is what they say: This topic is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. and every time it is someone with the user name SafariScribe who refuses to create the page. I have already proven in every way that the person is public and famous, all the sources and references I used are notorious and so is the artist. What should I do? 189.106.129.100 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should move on from this topic. Being public and famous is not the same thing as being notable. You have not shown he is a notable actor as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my page being rejected? I've already tried it in every way with all the true sources and references about the actor and it's not being accepted. Why are they doing this? 189.106.129.100 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create additional threads for every post, just edit this existing section. No one says the sources are not true, that is not the issue. You need to move on from this. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected means it is the end of the line for this topic. You cannot reverse it and resubmit. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 6 September 2024 review of submission by JanaFerrume

Hi , I created multiple edits I still believe this topic/person is and has notable credits JanaFerrume (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

00:25, 7 September 2024 review of submission by 2603:7000:C800:354F:C595:CED2:6C7:698D

2603:7000:C800:354F:C595:CED2:6C7:698D (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:15, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Jaytirth joshi

Finding References and Help as this is a COI Jaytirth joshi (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Deleted I suggest you do not attempt to use Wikipedia to advertise yourself, Jaytirth joshi. It is always doomed to failure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:48, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Mrsrusso35

because my article not good Mrsrusso35 (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a question? The article is not written like an encyclopedia entry, has no sources, and makes no real claim to notability. The reviewer was kind to not simply reject the draft outright. Given the name you're using on Wikipedia, it also appears there's a high probability that this is an autobiography or an article about someone you're closely connected to. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:27, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Davideeajeanseb

I don't understand why you do not find the verification of Jean-Sèbastien Colau, as He is the Ballet Director of the National Fondation of Teatro Massimo Palermo, as we can verify everything easily on the website of this National Theatre www.teatromassimo.it Davideeajeanseb (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davideeajeanseb: this draft is completely unreferenced, which is totally unacceptable especially where the subject is a living person (see WP:BLP). For the same reason, there is also no evidence of notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What is your relationship with the subject? Your user name suggests a connection, and you've uploaded a photo of him which you say you've taken. I've posted a message on your talk page regarding conflicts of interest, please read and respond to it. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:22, 7 September 2024 review of submission by A37393

What needs to be improved? A37393 (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A37393: We can't cite the Global Times (no editorial oversight). The Paralympics website is useless for notability (too sparse). The People's Daily source is credited to Xinhua, which is a dodgy source for any matter where the CCP has an interest in spinning it but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Even so, one source by itself cannot support any article on Wikipedia, let alone one where strict sourcing requirements apply. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 7 September 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

Turned down several hours ago over reliable-source concerns--although the links from Newspapers.com and Allmusic clearly suggest otherwise. Filing this appeal to see if I'm missing one more ingredient per WP:NALBUM/WP:SIGCOV, or if the decline was a mistake; on behalf of page creator Piperium (talk · contribs). Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 7 September 2024 review of submission by MartaTari

Can you tell me for which informations reliable sources are needed. If you can specify me this then I can rewrite the article in a better way without (I hope) making errors like this.

Thanks MartaTari (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MartaTari: pretty much everything needs to be supported by reliable sources. Which source gives this person's date of birth? Which one says that "He is renowned for his contributions to research on vortex reconnection, turbulence, and boundary layer stability"? Where does his educational history come from? Etc. etc. You should only be summarising what reliable sources say, and then you must cite those sources so that the information can be verified. This is a core principle of Wikipedia in any article, but especially important in articles on living people (see WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Now I will correct what you made me note.
thank you MartaTari (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 7 September 2024 review of submission by CATLORD1944

should I add it to a page about cookies CATLORD1944 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CATLORD1944: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We do not accept random things and concepts that are novel; sources are hard-required to demonstrate that the term/concept is in relatively widespread use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

06:58, 8 September 2024 review of submission by Jnana theertha

What are the reasons for decline Jnana theertha (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnana theertha: We don't host instruction guides or original research unattested by reliable sources, which is why this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:01, 8 September 2024 review of submission by 85.253.11.128

Because is an real countries seen is an real countries in the cold war 85.253.11.128 (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite even one reliable source to support this? And by 'reliable', I don't mean Fandom. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute nonsense. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:37, 8 September 2024 review of submission by Faridgurbanov3

I have question about my references. Which one is not suitable for Wikipedia, as I did not understand Faridgurbanov3 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faridgurbanov3: they are all primary sources (business websites), which cannot be used to establish notability per WP:GNG. They may also not be particularly reliable, as they each have an 'agenda' to push. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 8 September 2024 review of submission by 67.211.168.157

I have just written a draft article on Paul Veneto, a retired flight attendant who is currently pushing a beverage cart from Boston to New York to commemorate flight crews lost in the September 11th, 2001 attacks. Is there any way to get this expedited so it can be reviewed and published before he arrives at the September 11th memorial on that day? Thanks for any help. Draft:Paul Veneto 67.211.168.157 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not respect external deadlines. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 8 September 2024 review of submission by Violetpennington

This draft was denied by a reviewer, supposedly because it did not meet the requirements for notability, but the individual in question is a major media figure whose work has been covered extensively by many international outlets. Violetpennington (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted it; the reviewer will either accept it or leave feedback. In my looking at it, you have summarized his work, but not what independent reliable sources say is notable about him. You quote a Canadian government official speaking about his work, but not him personally or how the fact that he filmed the footage made it significant. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:02, 8 September 2024 review of submission by AutisticMinnesotan

I don't know why it breaks the five pillars. Please help. Also, I'm not usually the paragraph guy, but do I have to write a paragraph? Cause I might delete this account if I do. Sorry if this is is unnecessary or unkind, Sincerely - AustisticMinnesotan AutisticMinnesotan (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you have written a math problem. This is a place to write an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


September 9

00:03, 9 September 2024 review of submission by 69.157.87.189

What would make this more notable? The reviewer mention there was not sufficient independent coverage. But I had included several external links, including a few to notable literary awards. 69.157.87.189 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:15, 9 September 2024 review of submission by 189.202.71.98

Kenneth Ian Valdivieso Almeida is for Mexico 189.202.71.98 (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:44, 9 September 2024 review of submission by Wikiproject2024

How can I rewrite this article to sound more neutral? I used the Rotary Youth Exchange wikipedia website as a guide. Can you provide an example to help me fix the draft? Wikiproject2024 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1244777343"