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 Github-Project (talk | contribs) at 11:51, 21 January 2025 (Requesting assistance regarding User:Github-Project/sandbox). 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


January 15

00:11, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Wahdoh

The article is correctly cited according to wikipedia guidelines. Please tell me if I am mistaken and what more information should I provide to make it acceptable. Thank you. Wahdoh (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the draft for resubmission per SafariScribe's statement "I am reopening this draft for submission if you cite sources.", as it seems you have added inline citations. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:34, 15 January 2025 review of submission by JazzDoc5525

This article was declined. I tried to ask the editor who declined it their reasoning and received no response. I could use some guidance here... This article was submitted with what should be the *highest* value sources, feature articles in both Downbeat and JazzTimes magazines. It is very difficult to get this coverage if a musician is not "notable." For young jazz artists, there are no better independent references for a Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, Wiki has consideration for Genre-Specific notability which seems to be disregarded here. The criteria seems subjective and the editor seems uninformed about relevant sources... Thanks. JazzDoc5525 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JazzDoc5525: We can't use https://www.allaboutjazz.com/musicians/behn-gillece/ (unknown provenance). Replacing that source with a much better one might help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Infomdzakaria

page rejected, but person is really famous and well know person in Bangladesh. Infomdzakaria (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Infomdzakaria: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:00, 15 January 2025 review of submission by LPM UNKLAB

I want to create an alumni profile of universitas klabat, because i'm a webmaster of universitas klabat LPM UNKLAB (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LPM UNKLAB: the first thing you need to do is disclose your paid editing. I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
As I said when I rejected your draft, none of the alumni listed in it seems to be notable, as we define it, since they don't have existing Wikipedia articles.
And even if all three were notable, there would be no real reason to publish a separate article just for that, when they can be very easily included in the main university article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Also, do not edit (other than to make simple typo etc. corrections) the main university article directly, on account of your conflict of interest. You need instead to make edit requests via its talk page; the easiest way to do that is via the wizard at WP:ERW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Please do not create multiple drafts on the same subject, you now have both Draft:Notable Alumni of Universitas Klabat and Draft:Notable Alumni in the system (as well as your sandbox User:LPM UNKLAB/sandbox). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Abdalrahmanmido

I was acquiring on why was my article declined

thank you and I hope to hear from you soon Abdalrahmanmido (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdalrahmanmido: I declined it, because there was no evidence of notability. The draft was entirely unreferenced, and only listed the university's own website as a general source. I then deleted it, as purely promotional, and also as a copyright violation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 15 January 2025 review of submission by 195.66.128.106

Dear Sir or Madam, For the Draft:Jamal Lasri submission, now I added 4 new references. It's ok? when the draft will be reviewed again? Thank you. 195.66.128.106 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment whether "it's ok" without reviewing the draft, which we don't do here at the help desk.
What I can tell you is that it won't be reviewed again unless you resubmit it by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 15 January 2025 review of submission by AdvSchools

Hi, can anyone please help me to understand to why the page can not be publushed? As similar pages with less references are published. Thanks. AdvSchools (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AdvSchools: there is no evidence that the subject is notable. See WP:ORG, which tells you what sort of sources we would need to see to establish notability.
What is your relationship with this subject? Your user name very much suggests you represent them somehow. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relationship to the subject. Im a advocate for schools information on wikipedia in the UK to be availible and create pages fot public interest within the UK. I do this mysel in my spare time I dont have any direct or indirect link to the page or anyother pages i contribute to. AdvSchools (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen may also be inappropriate, and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. You would be unaware of that as a new user. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take action. We need the help.
You must change your username immediately so that it represents you, not your organization. Go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My username does represent me as a advocate for school information within the UK to be freely accessed within the UK which is within the public interest within the UK. This is why my username is what it is. AdvSchools (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing about an organization called "Advantage Schools" and your username is an abbreviated form of that. Organization names are not permitted as usernames per the username policy- even if you are not affiliated with the organization. You must change your username. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an advocate for school information as part of your job duties? 331dot (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No im not. I do this in my free time as a hobby. AdvSchools (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools: you register your account and straight away create a draft on 'Advantage Schools'. Fully 100% of your edits to date have to do with that subject. Yet you're telling us that the 'Adv' in your user name stands for 'advocate', not Advantage? I'm sorry, but I find that rather difficult to believe. There are c 30,000 schools in the UK, how did you pick this group for your first edits? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its the most local to where I live. AdvSchools (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools: which schools will you be 'advocating for' next? Or is it just this group that you're interested in? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will start localy. Which the next may be Chiltern Learning Trust or council schools in the bedfordshire area or schools in the area without pages. AdvSchools (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a wikipedia School academy trust page is Star Academies which the entire page only has 3 rederences AdvSchools (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that article is marked as problematic at the top, so it is a poor example to use. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for that. So how come the page was accepted to be published if its a problematic artucle? AdvSchools (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That an article exists does not necessarily mean it was accepted by anyone. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist. The submission process you are using has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and isn't required of every user. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools Nitpicking will not win the day. You have been shown WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, so please accept that. If you find material worthy of removal please propose it for a deletion mechanism. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Star Academies to WP:AFD, thanks for the heads up AdvSchools. Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However the article im creating im not being paid for, nor im i directly linked or indirectky linked to. Please remove the undisclosed paid tag. AdvSchools (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools: Then why is your username basically an abbreviated name for the school? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My old user name was short for Advocate for Schools. UKSchoolUpdates (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i was only asking questions. AdvSchools (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 15 January 2025 review of submission by 126.22.10.209

Re this rejection of my proposed article, I accept that Kim Myong-sik is not significant enough to merit a Wikipedia entry and am happy with deletion of my post.

The rejecting editor 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 people).

I just note Kim Myong-sik has an entry in the Korean wikipedia at https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B9%80%EB%AA%85%EC%8B%9D_(1941%EB%85%84)

I wonder if this is sufficient a 'published reliable secondary source' to qualify him for an article in the English wikipedia. 126.22.10.209 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You cannot use Wikipedia (any language version) as a source on Wikipedia. Also, acceptance of an article into one language version in no way guarantees or even assists in being accepted into another version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, unfortunately the draft was not edited in six months and has been procedurally deleted, so we are unable to provide any relevant advice other than links that were already present in the declination (not rejection) decision from the reviewing editor. My suggestion would be to request it be restored so you can continue to work on it in the draft space. That can be done using this tool. Then we may be able to provide better advice. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Moe Moe Zaw

WP:CITEKILL I don't understand what you're saying. Moe Moe Zaw (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moe Moe Zaw: there is no need to support a statement with more than one (solid) source; tagging on multiple sources after non-contentious statements is WP:REFBOMBING. For example, the statement "She will represent Myanmar at Miss Universe 2024 in Mexico" is in the lead section supported by four sources, and in the final section by another four sources. This does not need eight sources in total. Using eight sources when one would do makes the reviewers' job unnecessarily difficult, and also suggests that the sources are likely to be flaky (quantity, rather than quality); neither of which does the draft any favours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you so much. Moe Moe Zaw (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is a sock target of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AungKaung932. This latest sock has been blocked as well.-- Ponyobons mots 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Jkllduvall

I just published my first article and it was instantly declined by another wiki user because it did not properly cite sources. I cited 4: The company website, the trademark office, and independent publication, and a non published book. All the links to the citations are valid and easily found by clicking on the link Jkllduvall (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just declined it for a second time for being blatant advertising, with your next edit you need to disclose your paid editing status. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a company page. Please see WD40 and other chemical companies for reference Jkllduvall (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have no 'company pages'; we have encyclopaedia articles about subjects (some of which are companies or other organisations) that demonstrate encyclopaedic value of some sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. And as discussed below, your sourcing is bad. On Wikipedia, sources are king. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: Gov't sources are useless for notability (gov't document), the company itself cannot make a case for its own notability (connexion to subject), your book cite is incomplete (missing page numbers and ISBN/OCLC#), and the Industrial Supply Magazine source is useless for notability (routine M&A coverage). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The government source is trademark noting dates. Industrial Supply Magazine is cited to confirm the date of the acquisition. The sources pertain to the notations. Jkllduvall (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall There is absolutely nothing in the draft that shows how the company meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: your sources basically confirm that this business exists, and that would be fine if Wikipedia were a business directory. Instead, we are an encyclopaedia, and need to see what makes this business worthy of note; how does it impact the world or at least its sector? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: You may have noticed I used the word "notability" a lot in there. As DoubleGrazing says, we want evidence the company has been written about by third parties other than standard business notices and press releases. The only source you cite that could potentially do that is the book cite, and that is missing vital bibliographical information needed to look it up. We're not a business listing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Absar Khan Pratapgarhi

I want talking Absar Khan Pratapgarhi (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question, @Absar Khan Pratapgarhi? qcne (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Absar Khan Pratapgarhi: Your draft is basically content-free. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 15 January 2025 review of submission by 50.100.44.204

Mickey Cuts Up is a famous Mickey Mouse cartoon and should have an article, but the sourcing really doesn't talk about it. Can someone show me more reliable sources that actually explain the film? Thanks a lot. 50.100.44.204 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How famous is it if no sources discuss it? The more general help desk is a better plac to ask for help with sources. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I Can't access the regular help desk because it is semi protected. Now What? 50.100.44.204 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right......its been targeted by an abusive user. I think Talk:Help desk will work. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should go to the Teahouse will that work? 2605:B100:102:98EE:90C7:7CB5:BFCC:1A4A (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's protected too. Wikipedia talk:Teahouse will work. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Win8x

Hey there! I'm not exactly a new user but as this draft was already started, I opted to not create the article in mainspace. I added sources to it from third parties and thought it would meet WP:NWEB. It seems it doesn't, but haven't got a comment besides the generic message. I feel like I should have enough experience to know, help me out here! win8x (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @CSMention269 and @SafariScribe as the two reviewers. Rusalkii (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for that :) win8x (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I declined it because during the time I was checking none of the sources qualifies WP:GNG at that time. After that, I have not looked further. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that I fully understand haha win8x (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Al Gattany

how to submit this article? Al Gattany (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Gattany, your draft has been rejected because it is a waste of time for other reviewers to continue reviewing it. It clearly doesn't meet the required threshold, WP:NACTOR. Please don't be discouraged, keep learning because it is a process. Maybe you should consider other works like correcting typo and grammatical errors. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Jumarsy

I'm submitting with more references. However, in the meantime, another Wikipedia page showed up. With much less information. We would like to replace it. Thank you. Jumarsy (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge with dupe question above Rusalkii (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just resubmitted the article, adding, as requested, more citations. Very recently, another article of the same instrument has been added (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-slit_Solar_Explorer). We want to replace the article with the one just submitted. Jumarsy (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumarsy, are you replacing the entire article? Are you connected to the subject? Probably yes since you used "we". You should use the article's talk page to request that your changes be added to the article using the WP:COI request tool. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am connected to the subject (I'm the science deputy lead of the instrument). I am not sure who did the other articles. I don't want to merge changes but change the entire article. Jumarsy (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

00:18, 16 January 2025 review of submission by 2601:401:C400:D800:9939:D1EB:EB02:2C54

I've submitted this article several times but it has been rejected everytime. I need help. 2601:401:C400:D800:9939:D1EB:EB02:2C54 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the reviewer comments in the draft? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 16 January 2025 review of submission by WistahHoney508

Hello, as a Wikipedia newbie re: creating articles, I would greatly appreciate help with the article for screenwriter Caitlin McCarthy. Is it possible to have the draft name changed from Caitlin McCarthy (activist) to Caitlin McCarthy (screenwriter)? Also, are there too many inline URLs in this article? Lastly, is there info that's more LinkedIn than Wikipedia? I've tried to make this Wikipedia ready but could use your expertise. Thank you! WistahHoney508 (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Csstaes

The reviewer wrote, "There's a lot of information in here that either isn't supported by the sources, is a synthesis of published work that isn't actually what the sources say, or isn't sourced at all." I do not find this information helpful for polishing this article to Wikipedia standards. Below is the reference list for this article. I would appreciate it if the reviewer could indicate what information needs to be supported or is incorrectly supported so I can amend it. Thanks! Reference list: 

"Professor Andrew Jones appointed as Brunel's next Vice-Chancellor and President". Brunel University London. Brunel University Press Office. 1 October 2021. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
Jones, Andrew M. (3 November 2003). Management Consultancy and Banking in an Era of Globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 225.
Jones, Andrew M. (31 July 2006). Dictionary of Globalization. Cambridge: Polity. p. 258.
Jones, Andrew M. (26 June 2010). Globalization: Key Thinkers. Cambridge: Polity. p. 275.
"Andrew Jones – Academic Profile". City, University of London. 31 January 2020. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
Jones, Andrew; Ström, Patrik, eds. (2023). Handbook of Research on the Green Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
"Board of Trustees". London Higher. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
"Professor Andrew Jones". Universities UK. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
"Members of the Board of Trustees". Campaign for Science and Engineering. Retrieved 22 November 2024.  Csstaes (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Csstaes The best way to address the reviewer directly is on their user talk page, click the word "talk" next to their username in the decline message. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the list of references above, it does not appear to me that a single one of them meets the triple criteria of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of Jones - in fact, it does n't look to me as if any of them meet even the first two criteria. (see WP:42).
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) 15:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Toblerone101

What exactly should I add because I will gladly add it TobyB (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. It's better if you have the sources in hand before attempting to write, not look for sources after the fact(see WP:BACKWARD). 331dot (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Associatte

Hello! Good morning to whoever I may be talking to. Beartown, the book, already has a Wikipedia page and I noticed its sequel doesn't. So I tried to add. But I've never done this before, and I want to make sure everything is alright. I mean, I thought I could add the official synopsis if I gave it the reference, but apparently, I could not. I'm sorry for the trouble with that. But how can I make sure my draft is alright? Associatte (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A book must be shown to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable book. Usually that is done by summarizing some reviews of the book written by professional reviewers. Your draft article does little more than document the existence of the book. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 16 January 2025 review of submission by 41.81.12.169

Why is my article being said that it contains a copyright? 41.81.12.169 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the report linked on the draft page, because your article is mostly written by copying text from Kenyan Vibe [1]. That violates both our policies and copyright law. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Susko3

I would like to write and article about CircusP, and have a draft in my user sandbox. But before I move it to the Draft: namespace and submit for review, I would like to check if my situation constitutes a WP:COI.

I am a volunteer livestream chat moderator (similar to Internet_forum#Moderators, mostly deleting spam) on CircusP's YouTube and Twitch channels. I don't have any relationship with the subject beyond that. Please let me know if that considered a COI that I should disclose on my user page. Thanks, Susko3 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since you volunteer on their YouTube, you are associated with them. Simply list the COI on your user page. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Oseikhe

Please help, why was this article rejected, to my own understanding reliable sources were attributed . And what does secondary sources mean. Oseikhe (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also I need assistance and guidance in understanding Article creation Oseikhe (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oseikhe: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Only one of your sources is remotely usable, and even that is not third-party. We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Mattova news/scholarly sources that discuss her at length and have been subjected to rigourous fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Oseikhe. This sort of experience is common when new editors plunge straight into the challenging task of creating an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you enter a tennis tournament when you only played your first ever game last week?
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) 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Ktkvtsh

User:Macbook01 has removed my AfC decline from the draft as well as others. I'm not sure how to get them all back onto the draft properly. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh am I suppose to keep the top?
sorry. Macbook01 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not sure where to put your decline back on.
It was about stacking citations at the end. Macbook01 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic, is this something you could assist with? Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh done KylieTastic (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it about a dozen times now to refine each fact I wrote. How's it look to you? Macbook01 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it is fixed, please only edit the draft below all of the reviews. Thanks! You can always ask for clarification if you get confused. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you!
How's the article look? Macbook01 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only review drafts one time. Another reviewer will take a look at it for you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Scottlinehan1999

How can i get the page to be accepted. I based the list off the French international rugby players list which was accepted and i have it sourced. Whats the problem. Scottlinehan1999 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable on another Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Please see the note left by the reviewer, the draft fails WP:NLIST. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 16 January 2025 review of submission by CLWwrites

My article was initially declined because I needed to change the writing style and references. I fixed those and submitted it. Another couple of rounds of changes which I did and submitted. When I resubmitted today, I was told I cannot resubmit, so I'm a little confused. CLWwrites (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, have you used AI to write this page? Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness, of course not. CLWwrites (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot seriously think it is suitable for an encyclopaedia? It's possibly the worst paid draft I have ever reviewed. Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point clear many times CLWwrites (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CLWwrites. As you may have worked out, writing for an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia is different from most other kinds of writing. A very very short guide to writing a successful article:
  1. Find several sources that are reliable, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Ignore anything on social media, anything written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates, or based on their words (such as interviews and press releases). Ignore anything with less than a couple of paragraphs about the subject specifically (as opposed to, for example, his business).
  2. If you have not found a minimum of three such sources, give up: you will be wasting your own and anybody else's time continuing to work on this
  3. If you have, forget every single thing you know about the subject and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
Congratulations. You now have an acceptable article, which you or others may be able to add to.
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) 23:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR - Please spend some time doing basic edits before starting a draft.
You really want to find at least three reliable and independent sources covering the subject in some depth before starting a draft/article. doing this in the wrong order makes everything painful.
ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had 3 reliable and independent sources as they were newspapers. Yes, it's been a painful exercise. CLWwrites (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...a kind and helpful response, I so appreciate that. I realize it's a different style of writing but I thought I had enough independent sources. I'll look at it again. Another reviewer recommended that I needed releases from the photographer for the photos I had added, even though it was likely a staff member or his wife were the photographers, so I just removed the photos. They were from his private photo collection. So you're suggesting that I edit other articles? Thank you again. It's been quite a journey. CLWwrites (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping this reply finds you...it isn't displaying under your comment. Thank you very much for being so helpful. CLWwrites (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CLWwrites. Thank you for taking the feedback graciously. Yes, I strongly recommend that you edit other articles, and learn that way about how we do things.
Images will not affect whether a draft is accepted or not, so I suggest forgetting about them for the time being. In order to use them eventually, you will need the copyright holders (most likely the photographers) to agree to follow the procedure in WP:donating copyright materials.
I haven't looked at your sources, as you haven't linked to them (you are under no obligation to do so - and of course some sources may be offline anyway - but it makes the reviewer's talk easier if you do), but judging from the titles it doesn't sound as if many of them have in-depth coverage of Winter. They might even be enough to make his business notable even if he isn't. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback was a fresh response to one of the first reviewers who said it was the worst article they had ever read and I should refund any money I received. That was a little distressing, let me tell you, so your feedback was refreshing - it was helpful. There are 7 newspapers referenced. Yes, they are mostly about Saint Cinnamon coming to other countries but The Toronto Star is a big one about him. The award for the fastest growing QSR Quick Serve Restaurant was him. Most of the newspapers are not online. I reached out to the publishers, even The Toronto Star article is archived and if I use the link it sends you to a library and you need to set up an account to view it, so I wasn't sure if that would be a good practice. His poem was accepted into the Kennedy Accessions Library and through my inquiry to them, they updated it to be online.
So thank you. His business is notable. Over 200 locations globally is quite an accomplishment and he changed how the industry did things.
I will look to other articles and edit a few. CLWwrites (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

01:14, 17 January 2025 review of submission by AdrianaStanzione

My article was declined due to reliability issues, and I was wondering where specifically this applied throughout the article so I can fix it? AdrianaStanzione (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AdrianaStanzione. I am not a reviewer, and I haven't looked closely at your draft or your sources. What I will say is that "reliability" is not a property of text, but of sources - whether they are published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking or not; and that when the boilerplate comments that reviewers leave talk about "reliability" of sources, they often refer as much to the independence of sources. 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.
Sources that are going to be used to establish notability need to meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. Interviews, and pieces based on press releases, don't do this. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:20, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Jackson Teiratop

Why did my article get rejected???? 

Jackson Teiratop (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources to verify the claims made. Ktkvtsh (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jackson Teiratop. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable, independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. If you don't cite any sources, then you have no article. ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:24, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Afsal8943

please advice us to solve this Afsal8943 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please advice us Afsal8943 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an investor brochure, and you are obligated to DISCLOSE YOUR EMPLOYMENT per our Terms of Use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 17 January 2025 review of submission by 151.95.147.68

Dear Moderators,

I am writing to seek guidance regarding the repeated rejection of the English version of the Wikipedia page for Finestre sull'Arte. Despite my efforts to address the feedback provided by integrating additional sources, the page continues to be declined with the explanation:

"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."

I wish to highlight that the same page, based on identical content and sources, has been approved in other languages, as demonstrated by the following links:

Italian: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%27Arte German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%E2%80%99Arte Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%27Arte French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%27Arte Given this context, I would appreciate your advice on how to make the English version compliant with the requirements for reliable sources. Are there specific types of references or additional details that I should prioritize?

Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your guidance. Best regards, 

151.95.147.68 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot of unreferenced information in this draft, and much of the content is supported only by the publication's own website.
Whether an article on this subject exists in other language versions of Wikipedia is immaterial, as each version is a separate project with its own policies and requirements. To be accepted into the English-language Wikipedia, an article must meet our referencing and notability etc. standards (which, to be fair, are higher than those of other versions that I'm aware of). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The first point is that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own rules and procedures: what is acceptable in one may not be in others - and the English Wikipedia is said to have one of the strictest regimes for accepting new articles.
Secondly, as far as English Wikipedia is concerned, 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) 15:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it incredibly hard to believe this-- "Wikipedia is almost entirely 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.". Who goes through all the data and randomly decides what people they'd like to do an article about. For free no less. We all know that stars have publicists who likely pay to ensure their artists are thoroughly included here. Also, side note: the reviewers have all the charm as an over worked DMV employee. Almonday (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it hard to believe, but we don't - because we're the ones doing all that work for free. Everyone you've talked to is a volunteer editor. We all write articles about subjects we have no connection with. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Infomdzakaria

as per your instruction i have completed all the references relating to the artile, pls allow me to submit again 

Infomdzakaria (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and Facebook are NOT reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Macbook01

Let me comb through more articles and resubmit. don't block the submission. people were not allowing it and giving no comment on it... Macbook01 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With 6 declines and a final rejection it's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 17 January 2025 review of submission by AngelaBishopFoodie

Thank you for reviewing my article. My question is regarding the qualifications for notoriety as 2 articles have been written regarding the topic. AngelaBishopFoodie (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's "notability", not "notoriety"(which can have a more negative connotation). Your draft is completely unsourced. If you need help writing references to sources, see Referencing for beginners. You seem to be writing about yourself, while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. I realized the misuse of the word choice after submission. As a beginner, this feedback is appreciated. AngelaBishopFoodie (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AngelaBishopFoodie
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.
Having said that, I would add that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, because very few people are capable of writing about themselves sufficiently dispassionately for Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about the subject, nothing less and very little more. What the subject or their associates say or want to say about themselves is almost irrelevant. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Sammyueru

Hello, this draft is declined with the reason of notability and unreliable resources. I have several questions regarding the decision:

1) I checked WP:SINGER and WP:BANDMEMBER while writing this draft, and according to those articles, I believe Jongho fulfills the following criteria:

- "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." --> His solo OST "A Day" charted in Circle and Bugs music chart, and another solo OST "Gravity" charted in Bugs music chart, which are music charts in Korea.

- "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability" --> As listed in the draft, Jongho various solo activities separate from his group Ateez, as an OST singer, acting, and television shows.

Can anyone please help me understand how these do not fulfill the notability criteria?

2) I used a lot of Korean news article with registered journalists as the cited references. The articles I used also talked about his solo activities, where his name is on the title itself, so it is not just a passing mentions of his name in those articles. Can anyone please point out which references are not suitable for these articles?

Thank you for your help! Sammyueru (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammyueru: I would look at WP:CHARTS in re the music charts, as we don't accept every national chart. For South Korea specifically, we accept MIAK, Circle, or Billboard K-Pop Hot 100. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll remove the Bugs chart and only keep the Cirlce chart then Sammyueru (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 17 January 2025 review of submission by CamalPirhbaiSLB

Hello everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to make a biographical entry on Camal Pirbhai, a notable artist in Canada. The article was declined due to a lack of significant coverage in my sources. I cited books, articles and other media. Is there anything I can do to improve my sourcing so the page doesn't get declined again? I don't quite understand what is meant by "lack of significant coverage", as I cited books, articles, and other media. Any help is appreciated. CamalPirhbaiSLB (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Camal Pirbhai? If so, please note that writing autobiography is very strongly discouraged in wikipedia. If not, please explain why you have used his name for your account, and what your relationship is with him. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Praveenpmanappattu

The article is genuine and all references are alive. Please help to publish Praveenpmanappattu (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Praveenpmanappattu: We do not accept content written via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Atomobiz

Hi, Italian wiki has a page for Archbishop Lauro Tisi: I've translated part of it (Draft:Lauro_Tisi) but it got rejected. What'd be the legitimate way to translate it? Kind regards, Atomobiz Atomobiz (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Atomobiz. I have replaced the URL by a Wikilink to the draft - that is much easier to read.
Your draft has been declined, not rejected: declined means that you may improve it and submit it again.
Please start by reading WP:translation.
Note that it:Lauro Tisi has only one source, and that is an official announcement.
In English Wikipedia, an article is a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about a subject - if no such sources are cited, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Marlaytoday

I have thoroughly revised this draft to align with Wikipedia's guidelines, ensuring: - Neutral point of view throughout the article - Comprehensive citations from reliable, independent sources - Proper encyclopedic tone and formatting - Removal of any promotional language - Clear demonstration of subject notability through significant third-party coverage Marlaytoday (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you haven't, @Marlaytoday.
The draft currently begins "CB was a trailblazing figure who revolutionized". Two hugely promotional words in the first sentence.
Evaluative words like that are never appropriate in a Wikipedia article, unless they are being directly quoted (with attribution) from a reliable published source wholly unconnected with the subject. Please see WP:PEACOCK. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Editor x45

I am seeking assistance with improving and publishing an article draft about Julian Gualtieri, a former professional basketball player and current financial advisor. The draft has undergone several revisions, but it was previously rejected for not meeting Wikipedia’s notability and citation standards.

The draft highlights his notable achievements in basketball, such as his participation in the FIBA Europe All-Star Game (2011, 2013) and his gold medal with San Marino at the European Championship for Small Countries U18 in 2013, along with his career transition into finance as Vice President at Morgan Stanley.

I have included reliable references, such as: 1. RealGM Profile for career statistics. 2. Morgan Stanley Official Profile. 3. FINRA BrokerCheck. 4. SEC Adviser Info.

Despite these efforts, I am struggling to align the article with Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability and verifiability.

Could someone kindly review the draft and provide guidance on: • Whether the subject meets the notability criteria for athletes or professionals. • Any suggestions for improving the draft’s structure or sourcing.

I want to ensure the article meets all necessary standards before resubmitting it for review. Your advice or support would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and expertise!

Best regards, editor x45 Editor x45 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Editor x45. None of those four sources you mention is of any relevance.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources wholly unconnected with the subject have published about the subject: nothing less, and very little more.
Sources such as those are either not independent, or contain very little encyclopaedic information about the subject (or both). An article based on what they say will have hardly any content. MOst of the content in your draft is unsourced.
You need to find places where people journalists, researchers, academics, have written in some depth about Gualtieri. If you cannot find several such, then he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 17 January 2025 review of submission by ПолинаБаляева

Почему статья отклонена и как сделать так, чтобы она была принята? ПолинаБаляева (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Следующее было переведено с английского с помощью Google translate, и я не могу ручаться за его точность.) Это англоязычная Википедия, и все вклады должны быть на английском языке. Вы можете захотеть внести вклад в русскоязычную Википедию. JBW (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

01:51, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Smilingrubberduckie

Hello! I was hoping for feedback about how to improve an article I recently wrote (I'm new to creating Wikipedia pages!). I was looking to make a page for TEDxIndianaUniversity and was referencing some other TEDx event Wikipedia pages out there to understand what should be included (e.g. TEDxSanta Cruz, TEDxTauranga, etc.). From those, I assumed the path to follow was provide information about the organisational history, add references to speakers who were at the events, and cite them with a mix of TED entries and local newspaper reporting. The article received a decline, noting that it needed "sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent." I guess what I'm wondering is where I should improve on the article draft? I attempted to cite each event with local newspaper articles (IDS News) wherever possible, so I'm not sure if it's related to this or perhaps something else I'm not seeing. Any advice would be greatly appreciated... thank you for all the help! Smilingrubberduckie (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have documented occurrences of this event, and told about what it is, but you have not summarized what independent reliable sources say is notable about this event, as Wikipedia defines a notable event. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something- we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the topic. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:19, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 90.236.79.171

Inquiry about a draft. The draft has a sufficient amount of citations from reliable sources, so why is it declined?

yet, this one has zero and is confirmed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Gemrot 

90.236.79.171 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jiří Gemrot, unfortunately, predates the drafting process entirely (first edit 2010/04/05). That said, I will be looking for sources for it and, if I find none, sending it to debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:20, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 96.61.3.224

Can I make an edit please 96.61.3.224 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a blocked user, IP now blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 223.223.154.13

I would want to highlight the life of this great person. How can I do so? 223.223.154.13 (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article about a person must, with a neutral point of view, summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your draft is completely unsourced, and not written neutrally. If you have independent reliable sources that give significant coverage of this person, you may rewrite the draft and ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider.
If you just want to tell the world about this person, you should do that on social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I feel that the reviewer's immediate rejection to be a little harsh, you have copied the text from external sources and are in breach of copyright. I have flagged it for deletion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Blagi66

Is it forbidden to use llm to write parts of the text? Blagi66 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blagi66: AFAIK it's not strictly speaking forbidden to use LLM to draft an article, but it is unadvisable. LLMs can't distinguish between acceptable sources and bad ones, at least not reliably, and are known to hallucinate when they can't find a source or can't reference a statement. They may also introduce copyright violations. And their writing style is not ideal for an encyclopaedia. If you're interested, you can read more on this eg. at WP:Artificial intelligence and WP:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I meant to add that on talk pages, the use of LLMs is frowned upon, or worse. Many users find it inappropriate, not to mention creepy, to be 'talking' to an algorithm when they'd rather talk to a human. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue that the LLM can make up arguments out of whole cloth that are divorced from both reality and Wikipedia policy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 18 January 2025 review of submission by XRAYNEOFFICIAL

please ive done all you have asked I have been waiting for 3 months now and every person I have contact is just repeating the same thing and is not straight to the point I have written about his albums, singles, his career before his albums and ive included links aswell. I dont know how your expecting much as it literally says from 2023 to 2025 so how all of you are expect a full blown documenty I dont know. ive got other page for different clients to sort out the same way you have to review it and all im asking is if you could think about it I never said I wanted it imminently all I said was if I remove Spotify and YouTube will it help. XRAYNEOFFICIAL (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XRAYNEOFFICIAL At risk of repeating myself, all you have to do, all, is to demonstrate that Xraybe passes WP:NMUSICIAN.
Before you do that, your user talk page has a formal question which you must answer before making any other edit of any description, please. That was doubtless triggered by "ive got other page for different clients to sort out the same way" and for which we recommend total transparency 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP blocked for username(as they clearly are not the named person) and UPE. 331dot (talk)

17:05, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Isaacaschulze

Why was the article declined? Isaacaschulze (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacschulze: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Isaacaschulze. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject: nothing less, and very little more. If you don't cite any reliable sources, there is literally nothing that you can validly put into an article.
If there are not enough valid sources discussing the subject, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and any attempt to write an article will be effort wasted.
New editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating an article usually have a frustrating experience: would you enter a tournament the same day as you picked up a tennis racket for the first time ever?
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) 18:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 79lives

Uh, for some reason this article wasn't accepted due to the fact that I clearly listed it as a disambiguation page. I don't know why it has been declined unfortunately. 79lives (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was a goodfaith mistake which was reverted, I have now accepted the page. Theroadislong (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Monster536

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for taking the time to review the article on Dr. You Chen. I appreciate the concerns regarding notability and would like to clarify why Dr. Chen meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (GNG), as well as specific criteria for academics under WP:PROF.

1. Tenured Faculty at a Reputable Institution Dr. Chen is an Associate Professor with tenure at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a top-ranked academic institution in the United States. Tenure at a major research university often indicates a high level of peer recognition and academic contribution, which aligns with WP:PROF guidelines.

2. Significant Award – PECASE Dr. Chen is a recipient of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). This is one of the most prestigious awards for early-career researchers in the United States, endorsed by the White House. Recipients are chosen for their innovative research and leadership in their fields, and national-level recognition such as the PECASE is frequently considered significant evidence of notability.

3. Major Peer-Reviewed Grants and Research Impact i) Dr. Chen has served as Principal Investigator on multiple NIH-funded R01 grants, including research on care coordination and machine learning in pharmacogenetics. ii) His work in biomedical informatics, machine learning, and clinical informatics has been cited in a substantial number of peer-reviewed publications, indicating sustained impact within the scientific community.

4. Extensive Publication Record Dr. Chen has published over 100 scholarly articles, serving as first or senior author on more than 75% of them. Many of these articles appear in leading journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, and JAMA Network Open. They have been independently cited by numerous researchers, demonstrating influence and recognition within the domain.

5. Fellow of the American Medical Informatics Association (FAMIA) This fellowship recognizes individuals who make significant professional contributions to the field of informatics. Dr. Chen’s selection as FAMIA further demonstrates his standing among peers.

Given these points, we respectfully request reconsideration of Dr. Chen’s article. His career milestones—tenure at a top-tier research institution, a prestigious national award (PECASE), multiple NIH R01 grants, and recognized fellowships—underscore that Dr. Chen meets both the WP:PROF criteria and general notability requirements. We have also provided reliable, third-party sources where possible, and we welcome further guidance on any additional references or clarifications needed.

Thank you again for your time and for the opportunity to improve the entry. We look forward to collaborating with the Wikipedia community to ensure the article meets all required standards of verifiability and neutrality.

Sincerely, Monster536 Monster536 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?
The first step in appealing a rejection is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article. (Like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Being tenured is not listed at WP:NPROF. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the quote from White House Press release "the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on outstanding scientists and engineers early in their careers." https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2025/01/14/president-biden-honors-nearly-400-federally-funded-early-career-scientists/ Monster536 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Monster536 As I said, what matters is if there is an article about the award. If it's that prestigious, there should be plenty of sources about it to summarize in an article. Awards in and of themselves do not confer notability on a topic, as anyone can create any award. That's the reason there needs to be an article about an award cited as the reason for a person's notability. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this wiki article helpful to describe the award? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Early_Career_Award_for_Scientists_and_Engineers Monster536 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster536: We're not going to engage with arguments made by a chatbot. If you're serious about this draft, get rid of the LLM and write in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You Chen (draft) was written by Monster536, without using LLMs. The arguments were drafted by Monster536 and polished by LLMs. If Wiki is not allowed for a polish from LLMs, then Monster536 will avoid it next time. Sorry about it. Monster536 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We want to communicate with you, not a bot. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, who is "we"? Are you associated with the professor? 331dot (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the person who knows the professor. I communicated with the professor to confirm all the information I wrote in the You Chen article is accurate. Monster536 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster536 Have you yet appealed directly to the rejecting reviewer? If not, and if you wish to proceed further, please do so. No amount of blandishment here will overturn their rejection, especially when crafted, by or polished by an LLM. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Monster536. Communicating with the professor is of almost no relevance to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia has very little interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves. Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth. If the professor tells you something that has not been published in a reliable source it may not be put in an article. If the professor tells you something that has been published only in non-independent places (such as his own or his department's website) it probably should not be used in an article, though there are exceptions: see WP:SPS. ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 19

00:00, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Jocptn

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WIKI PROJECT YOU CAN GOOGLE IT TO VERIFY Jocptn (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jocptn: We have stricter standards than relying on a search engine that fucks up a basic question about Islam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't yell, please. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:18, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Jakeh81

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am trying to figure out what about my current article is not enough to get this page published. I have made many films that have much less notability than the singular movie I am trying to have a page created for (and this is the first page I've ever tried to create). I have cited a multitude of sources, and am putting zero biased information for the page up other than the facts about its release and general info which has been highly publicized and published from a number of reputable public sources. Thanks. Jakeh81 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. My latest submission met the criteria and the page was created. Thank you! Jakeh81 (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

03:53, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Almonday

First thank you for the explanation for the article's rejection. I only partially used a language model as I used it to make sure the language I was writing fit into the criteria for submission. I might be premature in starting a page here as I'm likely not famous enough or have as much public notoriety as needed. I don't go out and seek publicity so being famous wasn't the goal. BUT the things I've been involved with are well-known. Curb Records, Roger Daltrey, the film Voyage of the Rock Aliens with Ruth Gordon. Jennifer Nettles and Christian Bush, Richard Marx aren't random people. I apologize for attempting to write it myself. I worked hard on it. I'll likely just delete it. The help desk btw was pretty rude. And I don't know if Theroadislong works for you but he's a jerk and can't spell encyclopedia. Thanks so much. Marc Jackson aka Al Monday. (A character on "It Takes a Thief" from the 70s and my nickname since I was 9.) Almonday (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:encyclopaedia may be of interest. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almonday, your draft is overtly promotional and violates all three of Wikipedia's core content policies, which are Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view. Plus, the writing is stilted and bizarre. Your references are spectacularly incompetent. Bare URLs leading to dead links are of zero value. Your draft bears no resemblance to an actual, properly written and referenced encyclopedia article. Note that I used the American English spelling since I live in California. Note that the spelling you mocked was a legitimate British English spelling and that the editor you unwisely ridiculed, Theroadislong, discloses that they live in the United Kingdom, and I will inform you that this editor you insulted has made monumental contributions to this encyclopedia/encyclopaedia vastly greater than you can imagine. You, on the other hand, have submitted third rate robot written self-promotional drivel, and you want actual productive encyclopaedia editors to take you seriously. Hmmmm. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almonday: While I do not agree with Cullen's choice of words (they are a mite aggressive), the general thrust of what he says is the correct tenour. Your sources are either website homepages which have naught worth citing, a Bandcamp which has a connexion to him, and two random Youtube videos which we can't cite regardless of the philosophical manoeuvring you make to argue for them due to them being music videos. (The URLs for the Youtube videos are also rubbish and malformed.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almonday I had to look up the insult [2] ... "“jerk,” an American colloquialism, back to 1935, reports: “Originally: an inept or pathetic person; a fool. Now: an objectionable or obnoxious person." Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks it can lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk)
@Almonday I have stepped on Warren Mitchell's foot at a party, and literally tripped over Mike McGear on stage. Does this mean I should have an article?
Please do not abuse people here; it does not help your quest for an article.
What will help is referencing which verifies any notability you may have. The rule is simple. No referencing = no article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almonday, I don't see that anybody has pointed out here that autobiography is very strongly discouraged here, since almost nobody can write about themselves in a sufficiently neutral way.
I'd also point out that the guidelines which you describe as insane are there to help us make the quality of Wikipedia articles as high as possible, and will obviously be difficult for somebody to assimilate who has spent no time whatever practising editing existing articles and "learning on the job". 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) 22:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Fateh451

its our team. our every team member wants that we have a profile in wikipedia. Please give us permission to create our team profile. Fateh451 (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have profiles here, we have articles written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, that summarize independent sources. If you want to create a profile, use social media. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:49, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Edward Myer

Hello, and thank you for you time. I believe the article I have submitted meets wikipedias guideline under General Notability, And Notability under Wikipedia guidelines for (Musicians & Enables). It has been properly sourced with numerous independent references independent of the subject. I may have unintentionally ruffled a few feathers, On December 28th I  was contacted by the user DoubleGrazing on my talk page about a possible conflict of Interest. After disputing the claim I asked him about what I felt was a snide comment towards me on the Admins LIZ's talk page. He said he did not like my Shirty response. Another user Buster D  who seems to be following my every move entered the conversation and told me to lash out at my peril. "Lash out at your peril. BusterD (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2024" , Since then I believe I have been targeted by a circle of editors.

Instead of moving my draft to wikipedia's main space I sent if for review looking for help on its possible improvement. It was immediately declined by, the User Theroadislong (Who appears not be versed in what is considered sources of notability in the genre of Hip Hop Music). I started a topic on Theroadislong's talk page entitled "Who Sent Yah" in reference to my draft articles decline. The comment made during the conversation by Theroadislong' to DoubleGrazing showed they were clearly in cahoots on the articles decline, with Theroadislong to DoubleGrazing" Heh! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]and now they are blocked as a sock of User:Edward Myer. Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)"

I also received this message on my talk page from Buster D "Who told me to initially lash out at my Peril" I suspect that someone is about to remove your talk page privileges for your failure to act like a normal editor and unwillingness to accept your own responsibilities here. Unfortunately, your bad behavior will also likely translate into never seeing Draft:Bruse Wane published again. This is entirely on you, Edward Myer. Your bad behavior. Not theirs. BusterD (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] "They are the ones exhibiting bad behavior because I took exception to a snide remark. Buster D has tried also tried to change the narrative with this statement when I felt he was stalking me"Edward Myer, there's quite a difference between stalking somebody and merely noticing one editor is acting badly (as admins User:Bishonen, User:331dot), User:UtherSRG, User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:C.Fred, User:DoubleGrazing,"

My Draft was once again declined on January 19th and I believe no matter how thoroughly sourced it is with citations of notability by the subject. It will never be approved as there is a personal vendetta being enacted against. me. My Draft is being held hostage. Once again as state by Buster D as he tries to change the narrative on my talk page "Unfortunately, your bad behavior will also likely translate into never seeing Draft:Bruse Wane published again. This is entirely on you, Edward Myer.

My Draftis spitefully being held hostage and being declined. I would like me decline reveresed,as they are being done with Malice intent.


I also received this message from someone believing I'm the article's subject on January 16th 2025. From 

Ritik| Wikipedia Support r.singh@idigitalakki.co.in

Dear Bruse,

I noticed that your recent Wikipedia Bruse Wane submission was rejected. At IDigitalAKKI Media, we specialize in getting pages approved on Wikipedia, even after prior rejections.

Here’s how we can help: 

   •    Revise and rework your content to meet Wikipedia’s strict guidelines.
   •    Ensure proper citations from credible sources.
   •    Provide a 100% guarantee of successful placement on Wikipedia.

If you’re ready to establish your presence on Wikipedia, let’s get started. Reply to this email, and we’ll guide you through the next steps.

Looking forward to assisting you.

Best regards, Ritik Singh IDigitalAKKI Media Edward Myer (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The message is from a scammer, do not give anyone money. See WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one can provide a "100%" guarantee of anything. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward Myer: I have said this already, but apparently I need to say it again: do not go around accusing others of inappropriate behaviour without solid evidence (and even then, doing so behind their back is poor form, to say the least), let alone making personal attacks and innuendos. You were lucky to get away with a temporary block, and it's disappointing to see that you immediately return to the same sort of behaviour which contributed to you being blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward Myer: That email is from a scammer. Do not reply to it. As to your sources, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques":
You have a couple borderline sources out of your whole 58. The rest are completely unusable, either because they're extremely short or they aren't about Wane in the slightest. There's nothing here to really work with for an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 19 January 2025 review of submission by 70.52.185.101

Hi there,

I am a new user to wiki, but I’ve been exploring all resources on how to create an article. My draft for the above article was declined and I would like to receive a bit more specific feedback on what it was declined and what changes I can make to have it approved. Thanks so much. 70.52.185.101 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown how he meets the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:45, 19 January 2025 review of submission by JoshuaHG7

I submitted this to show all of the good things about tcgs and it was rejected with no clear reason. I have no idea about what happened. Double Grazing was the person who rejected it. JoshuaHG7 (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed your link. The draft is an essay of questions, not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just replied on my talk page. Please don't ask the same question in several places at once.
In short, this is not a viable encyclopaedia article, hence why I rejected rather than merely declined it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Zenithxxx

My article was rejected twice for reasons I feel dont align with the wiki guidelines used to reject my page. It was firstly rejected for being an unacceptable fork however based off the fork wiki page the topic assassination of Mohammed Ghori was acceptable as it was to develop from a sub-topic in which the examples given by the fork wiki (Death of Michael Jackson forking from the Michael Jackson wiki) matches with mine. However it was then rejected a second time for supposedly not being notable which does not make sense in my opinion. Mohammed Ghori was the founder and the first emperor of the Ghorid Empire of central asia. Furthermore based off of the wiki notability guidelines a topic is considered notable if the topic recieves coverage in reliable sources, which it has been. The topic has been notably discussed in many reliable medieval historical texts by independant third party historical authors such as by Minhaj-i-Siraj Juzjani, Firishta, Ibn al-athir, the Tarikh-i-alfi which was commissioned by the Mughal emperor Akbar and the Jami al-Tawarikh produced in the Mongol Ilkhanate with signiifcant mention, which leads me to believe it was wrongly rejected twice. Modern day authors such as VD Mahajan, sir henry Miers Elliot among many others refer to his death also, so this rejection should kindly be reconsidered.

Kind regards Zenithxxx (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first step in appealing a rejection is to ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would come after asking the reviewer to reconsider as after messaging him he hasn't expanded much as to why he considers it not notable and also failed to discuss of any of my points as to why I consider it notable based on the GNG. (The messages are located on his talk page) Zenithxxx (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Sliyanage1967

I am a little frustrated by continued rejection of this article. In today's edited version, I tried to remove as much as so called peacock terms. I have also added numerous references. Ultimately, this is about of the leading journalists from Sri Lanka who does not have a wikipedia page yet. I would appreciate your assistance. Sliyanage1967 (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sliyanage1967, the entirety of:
"Deshapriya’s most recent work, Easter Sunday Attacks in Sri Lanka: Shadow of the Deep State and Unanswered Questions, delves into the tragic and unprecedented events of 2019 Sri Lanka Easter Bombings, which targeted churches and hotels, resulting in over 250 deaths. This book examines the complex web of political intrigue and intelligence failures surrounding the attacks. Deshapriya investigates not only the immediate aftermath but also the larger, unresolved questions regarding the involvement of Sri Lanka's shadowy "deep state" and the failure of authorities to prevent such a catastrophic event. Through this work, Deshapriya highlights the systemic issues that contributed to the tragedy and urges a critical examination of Sri Lanka's political and security landscape."
is written in an inappropriate emotive, tone. qcne (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Maclaveau

I need help to make my page accepted. What more info do I need to provide? Maclaveau (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maclaveau it's just an advert for the company, @Maclaveau. qcne (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im new here, what changes do you suggest? Maclaveau (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maclaveau I've marked the draft for deletion as pure spam. What is your connection to the company? It seems odd to write a first draft in such a promotional way unless you are employed by them in some way? Are you? qcne (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am employed. As i'm new here, and this is my first article, i'm still learning. I did not know that we were not allowed to write an article for a compagy that we work for. Before deleting, is it possible to have some help/suggestions on what I can do/modify to make the page approuved and meet the Wikipedia guidelines? I am open to do the nessary ajustements :) Maclaveau (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maclaveau Your next step must be to declare your paid editing by following the instructions at WP:PAID. Failure to do this is a breach of our Terms and Conditions.
In essence, Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting or advertising a topic. Our articles must be written in a strictly neutral way, and should only summarise what reliable independent secondary sources state about a topic. You would need to find at least three sources that are each reliable, fully independent of the company, and provide significant coverage with in-depth analysis/discussion/commentary of the company. Then, summarise those sources in your own words in a strictly neutral way. That should be the content of your draft.
Have a read of our criteria for inclusion for companies at WP:NORG. qcne (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok got it! I just rewote a 100% neutral version of the page. As for the Would it be possible to remove de deletion? I will make the necessary adjusements. Maclaveau (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the deletion tag in good faith, but you must declare the paid editing now or your account may be blocked. qcne (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guide me on how to declare the paid editing? Please Maclaveau (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw thanks alot, I will modify to meet the requirements!! Maclaveau (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Create your user page here, outlining you are an employee of the company and are being paid to edit. See WP:PAID for the template to use.
I would also recommend reading Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia qcne (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just put it on my profile, can you verify if its ok? Thank you very much for your time! Maclaveau (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, thank you. qcne (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Maclaveau (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may also want to read WP:FIRST and WP:BOSS. -- asilvering (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

05:34, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Julynoeh

"I believe my article was not written in a promotional manner, yet it was declined. Could you kindly provide more details on how I can improve it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? I would appreciate any specific feedback you have. Thank you!" Julynoeh (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing, particularly the advantages part feels more like an essay or a promotion on a website Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject. If you write what the subject says or wants to say about themselves, it's likely to read as promotional. ColinFine (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:53, 20 January 2025 review of submission by U043talks

Help with editing as submission was declined. U043talks (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add reliable sources at least Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article should consist almost entirely of a summary of what reliable independent sources say about the subject. If you don't cite such sources, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Astroboy-tomorrow

How can I improve the draft Giok Djan Khoe ? Astroboy-tomorrow (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you advice on your draft. It reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about the professor, showing how he is a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:07, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Dhaanish Chennai

I am the representative of the college I tried to Publish content about my College. I took the content from my college website dhaanishchennai.com but it is rejected due to copyright reason. What should I do now. Dhaanish Chennai (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dhaanish Chennai: the first thing you need to do is change your user name. The second, you must disclose your paid-editing status. I will post information on your talk page.
You are not allowed to copypaste from external sources, including your organisation's own website. It clearly claims copyright, and you don't really want to be the one to trespass on your own rights, do you?
In any case, we have no interest in what your organisation wants to say about itself. We almost exclusively only want to know what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about it. Therefore copypasting what it says on your website is pointless, even if you were to release it from copyright, because that wouldn't be an acceptable article no matter what. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Babu Rumba Tamang

Chief Ass. Fight Director Babu Rumba Tamang (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the Autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:56, 20 January 2025 review of submission by 202.47.46.54

What i do for make perfect article 202.47.46.54 (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit spamming us. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:49, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Editorseditor15

Hi, Greetings to you, and first of all, thank you for your assistance. I’ve been facing some challenges recently as I’ve been trying to find sources digitally, but unfortunately, many of them are unavailable. However, I do have access to some physical references, such as newspaper articles and similar materials from the early 2000s. The issue is that I’m unsure where to find these articles online since they were from a time when the digital landscape was just beginning to evolve. Additionally, I’m wondering if the physical articles I have could be of any help in this process. Would you recommend any particular approach for utilizing these resources, or should I focus on finding alternative digital sources instead? In short, could you please guide me on how to find reliable sources from that period? I truly appreciate your time and help with this. Thank you! Editorseditor15 (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Editorseditor15. The good news is that sources don't have to be online: you can use offline published sources (such as a newspaper article). As long as you provide a full reference to allow a reader to go to a library or archive and view the source if they so wish, then you can use an offline source.
Regarding your draft, you right now have two styles of references and a long list of external links. You'll want to follow the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE so you only have a single Reference List, with every reference being an in-line citation to the text it is supporting. In a biographic article it is mandatory that every piece of information has a reference with an in-line citation next to the information it is sourcing. Also remove most of the external links (see WP:EXTERNAL for our policy). qcne (talk) 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:54, 20 January 2025 review of submission by JOien

Hello! I have recently been rejected for publishing this page and was wondering if anyone can give me advice and some direction to get it up to standard? It is my first ever page so would appreciate any help! Thanks so much in advance JOien (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JOien: you need to demonstrate, with reliable evidence, that this person meets one or more of the criteria enumerated at WP:NACADEMIC.
Also, although it wasn't a reason for declining, I noticed that the draft is quite poorly referenced, with a lot of information that is not supported by citations. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have especially strict referencing requirements, with pretty much every material statement you make needing an inline citation to a reliable source to support it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this. I was wondering what to do if there is not a good source for referencing awards, memberships, grant funding etc, what should I do? I do appreciate that these claims need references but I am struggling to find a concrete one. Do you have recommendations as to where to get access to this information? Thanks you again. This has been very helpful! JOien (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JOien: let me turn that around and ask you how you know about those things? Whatever your source for that information is, that's what you should be citing (assuming it's a published source and not hearsay etc.).
Ultimately, anything that cannot be backed up by a reliable published source must be removed. Weird as it might seem, we're less concerned by what is true, and more interested in what can be verified from reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: Thank you very much. I was stuggling as I could not get to the source of publishing as it was referenced and mentioned by those who he is associated with eg: universities. I have since made edits to my page and now believe that he may qualify as NACADEMIC and hence have less criteria to fulfil in terms of secondary sources so all should be resolved. Hoping this next submission goes ok! Thank you so much for your help though, it has been greatly appreciated! JOien (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:24, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Raskuly

I submitted it to draft because I prefer it to be looked over before going live, but the article is basically just waiting to be created. Guske would be the only player on this team to not have an article and he'll be with the club at least until 2027. Do I have to wait for the 2025 Major League Soccer season or 2025 Orlando City SC season to begin? Raskuly (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Raskuly: in the past football players could qualify under a special notability guideline (WP:FOOTY, as it was) if they had played at a certain level, but this provision was removed some years ago. Players now must satisfy the general WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage directly of them, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent. Match reports, player stats, sources affiliated with them (eg. club websites) etc. are not enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Mark-mcgdigital

My latest article has been rejected for unreliable citing source but it doesn't provide further information about which one? Are you able to provide further guidance? As all the sources are from sites which have been around for a while. I assumed that I had followed the guidelines to get this page up and running Mark-mcgdigital (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark-mcgdigital: I actually mainly declined this for failure to show that the subject is notable. But I added the second decline reason because you're citing user-generated sources (LinkedIn, YouTube), as well as The Sun which is a deprecated source and mustn't be cited. There is also unreferenced personal information which needs to be supported with reliable published sources or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Mark-mcgdigital. Please read WP:42. Please also read PEACOCK. Vapid PR-speak like "proven track record" doesn't belong in any Wikipedia article. More generally, 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.
More generally still, trying to create an article when you've only just started editing Wikipedia is like entering a tournament the same day you first pick up a tennis racquet. 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) 15:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 20 January 2025 review of submission by MJGTMKME123

Could you guys please expand the draft? MJGTMKME123 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MJGTMKME123 we don't really get involved in co-editing, but with four good sources it would probably be accepted as a stub article if you submit it for review. qcne (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kepler-1229b/2015_DM319 nevermind, someone else made something similar before i did MJGTMKME123 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a userpage, so not an article. qcne (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you meant a subpage MJGTMKME123 (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A subpage of a userpage :) qcne (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! That's what I thought of! MJGTMKME123 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MJGTMKME123. The point is that @Kepler-1229b's page is not an article, even though it looks like one, as it has never been moved to mainspace or submitted for review. It won't be found by external search engines. ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


16:37, 20 January 2025 review of submission by ScopeScience

Hi there! Thank you so much for your feedback on my article. I really want to improve it so it can be acceptable in Wikipedia´s terms. Would you help me with that? - When you say it´s more like an essay than a Wikipedia article, what do you mean? Which are the criteria for a Wikipedia article that this does not meet and thus makes it an essay? - 25 selected publications it´s not appropriate. He has approximately 200 publications, how many would be appropriate? - References were included, except for the personal stuff which honestly, I just know them because it´s a very small country but I have no written source for that. Should I exclude that? - Any other amendment your think I should do to get the article approved?

Thank you so much for your help! ScopeScience (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @ScopeScience. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have said about a subject - nothing less, and very little more. Which independent source says that he has "dedicated his career"? Which said he was "honored with a scholarship". Please read WP:PEACOCK.
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) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 20 January 2025 review of submission by NoirEditorial

I do not understand completely why the page cannot be published. I have given as much coverage of his life based on the very little information allocated to me. If anyone could please give me suggestions on how to get this page published that would be greatly appreciated. Bennie Carew was a legend in my hometown of Grand Rapids,MI and apart of highly under documented black American history. Thank you. NoirEditorial (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NoirEditorial: How much of your article is based strictly on what the two (malformatted; you're missing page numbers) sources say, and how much of it is extrapolation from those? Your sources should ideally be in-line, rather than just slapped on the end as if an afterthought. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, subjects which are "undocumented" cannot be featured in Wikipedia, no matter how worthy, because verifiability is a core value of Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:52, 20 January 2025 review of submission by 2400:1A00:BB10:3C9B:B0FC:173D:92B7:9DA1

can you suggest me on areas to improve so that the article made on raman gupta can be accepted. I want to know the areas lacking 2400:1A00:BB10:3C9B:B0FC:173D:92B7:9DA1 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramie0010: This is blatantly promotional, and I have tagged it for deletion as such. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 20 January 2025 review of submission by 96.249.215.37

Hey there! I see that my page submission was declined. What can I do to edit the format to make this fit the standards of Wikipedia? 96.249.215.37 (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Bobby Cohn who rejected this back in August(!). qcne (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Qcne. August, you say? Looks like I rejected on the basis of it being an apparent promotional autobiography, but it's possible that was heavy handed. If they're willing to work on it, I'll leave a note on the submitor's (IP's?) talk page and then resubmit it over my rejection if we can get it to an acceptable draft state. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello (I assume you're @Rockinsince97?) As far as I can see, not one of the sources in that draft meets the triple criteria of WP:42. 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) 11:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 20 January 2025 review of submission by EncyclopedianWP

Recent request for creation rejected EncyclopedianWP (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only declined, not rejected. A lot of this seems to be original research, which we don't allow. Do you have sources that specifically discuss the differences? We'd prefer you source those. qcne (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Zayn Ayan

I hope this message finds you well. I would appreciate it if you could kindly share the reason for the rejection of my article post. I am eager to learn and improve, and any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Zayn Ayan (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zayn Ayan, we only have articles about people who meet our special definition of a notable person. Syed does not meet that threshold. qcne (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 20 January 2025 review of submission by LommyLoaf

Hi!

Can someone please tell me how to put a reference down? I used ufbobkingdom.org, and tried to put it down but it did not work. Please respond!

Thanks. LommyLoaf (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LommyLoaf, I am afraid your draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. Please go to an alternative website like [3]https://micronations.wiki/wiki/Main_Page qcne (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can you at least tell me how to put a reference down? I did not ask for a opnion with all due respect LommyLoaf (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LommyLoaf: Help:Referencing for beginners. But without third-party sources with editorial oversight this article's trapped in the draft warren. And I'm not seeing any sources that we can actually use in a Google search (string: "United Federation of Big Old Bunny"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you search up the exact words: ufbobkingdom.org you will get a an exact replica of a search LommyLoaf (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would just point me to their website, which is useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it (connexion to subject). A Google search would actually have a chance at finding sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather immaterial due to the rejection, but you can follow the referencing tutorial at WP:INTREFVE if you decide to contribute further to Wikipedia with more appropriate topics. qcne (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I literally just started using Wikipedia yesterday and have no idea of what I am doing LommyLoaf (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I would really suggest having an explore of WP:INTRODUCTION to get acquainted with how to use Wikipedia. We're an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a place to host things you've made up. qcne (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:45, 20 January 2025 review of submission by AngelicaMonsalud

Hi team,

I’m wondering why my article keeps getting rejected. I’ve included all the necessary references and links, but it still hasn't been accepted. Could you please provide some feedback or guidance on what needs improvement?

Thank you. AngelicaMonsalud (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, and then rejected, which means resubmission is not possible. I would suggest asking the reviewer if anything might change their mind. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Helmut.groetzi-genf

I submitted this bio entry after it was redlinked for addition by another editor, as one in a list of the top most cited scholars in his department. Recently it was declined due to concerns about sources hence I contacted the declining editor but did not get a reply. I do notice some sources were added by others after my original submission, but am not sure which are an issue, so could use some guidance on which to update prior to resubmission. Helmut.groetzi-genf (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helmut.groetzi-genf I think you have created WP:BOMBARD, and concealed any notability he may have behind a welter of references. Thirty two references for two brief paragraphs is overkill. You haven't presented him yet as notable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Helmut.groetzi-genf. 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. Most of your references are to material by Foa. ColinFine (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:52, 20 January 2025 review of submission by Helloyesgoodbye

Have updated and improved content of post Helloyesgoodbye (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Linkedin.com is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please review each of your sources according to the triple criteria in WP:42. On I quick look, I doubt that any of them meet the criteria. ColinFine (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

00:40, 21 January 2025 review of submission by HWBK - R

Hi there, my page got declined and I have read the feedback and submitted a new request. However, it is still just showing that my old request is declined! Is this normal? HWBK - R (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HWBK - R:Yes. Declined reviews must remain in place while the page is still a draft. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HWBK - R I do not see that you have resubmitted it for review? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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) 11:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

00:59, 21 January 2025 review of submission by 159.118.104.110

because it is SUCh the greatest article and so important to learn about mah bearded dragon hamilton!! I love him sooo much and I want other people to love him too. 159.118.104.110 (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have articles on random people's pets or companion animals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:17, 21 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:8F8:1427:1B1B:BBFE:59C4:5A1E:E03B

Acharya Kompella Rama Suryanarayana is one of the greatest Sanskrit Scholars from South India, Tirupati. He got Award from President of India for his valuable works. Help me to bring this article to Wikipedia standards to be approved for publishing 2001:8F8:1427:1B1B:BBFE:59C4:5A1E:E03B (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is your sourcing not up to standards, this is effectively a hagiographical curriculum vitae. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:30, 21 January 2025 review of submission by Swathy Selvaraj

is it compulsory for adding refernces in the article? Swathy Selvaraj (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swathy Selvaraj Yes, references are compulsory. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. As noted by the reviewer, you haven't shown that the company is notable yet. Press releases are not an independent source, and the reporting of routine business activities(like the release of a product) does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 21 January 2025 review of submission by Math1um

The given source is a Nobel Prize winner's autobiography. I'm a scientist and rarely edit - and will let this drop (due to lack of time).

The person (Grady) is far more important than most scientists on Wikipedia, and the issue with Kariko (discoverer of mRNA vaccines) is one of the biggest issues in science - valuing bureaucracy and grant money over the search for truth. Kariko has called Grady out - and this should be recorded. Math1um (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Math1um I fixed your post, the whole url is not needed. You're either going to let this drop or you're not- if you're not, you need more independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person. If you are, nothing more needs to be done here. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:30, 21 January 2025 review of submission by 139.164.154.26

I have changed the page and i realised that it was simiular to the Aetherian Wiki, and i have not known it exsisted so because of that mistake i have then changed it so it is not asosiated with the Aetherian Wiki in any way. 139.164.154.26 (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a question, did you have one in mind? This draft has been rejected, which means that it won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 21 January 2025 review of submission by Anastasia Kireeva

Dear Wiki Community, could you please help me with my article? I guess I'm stuck with the resources list. I would be very grateful for your advice. Anastasia Kireeva (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastasia Kireeva: please be more specific, what sort of help do you require? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:46, 21 January 2025 review of submission by BPSkantze

Could you please help me understand what alterations should make in order to get this website accepted. BPSkantze (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please address your conflict of interest first as evidenced by your user name. Theroadislong (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:56, 21 January 2025 review of submission by ItsQPC

Please CBS i wanna wait for S.W.A.T. next Medical Country ItsQPC (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a single reference that this actually exists? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:51, 21 January 2025 review of submission by Github-Project

My article, 'The Future of Email and Decentralized Messaging,' was declined due to insufficient references. I would like guidance on how to properly source my content and meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Any tips on improving the article to meet the required standards would be appreciated. Github-Project (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1270828339"