Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


September 30

[edit]

04:43:17, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Cyanochic

[edit]


Hey y'all, I'm still new-ish - I just wrote my 2nd article and submitted it to AfC. Then I realized I had permissions to just move an article on my own now. I don't want to add to your backlog, but I don't want to mess up anything either. Can I just go in and move it on my own and it will remove itself from the list? Thanks! Cyanochic (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyanochic That it is now technically possible does not necessarily mean it is wise. In real terms only you can judge whether you are ready to move your own drafts to main space.
As long as you are diligent in referencing, and as long as your topics pass WP:GNG and/or the individual criteria, then move your own drafts with pleasure. I just Accepted the draft you mention.
Please tidy up after moving your own drafts to main space, removing any AFC artefacts.
I hope you have a happy time with this engaging hobby 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello there having trouble with mine can you help out ? Donblogerw (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:19, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 117.20.68.15

[edit]

Thanks for your feedback. Trilby Misso is a person a family and a historic business in Queensland, so would love to know how to redo the submission to make it work with the Wiki guidelines. Thank you for your help. 117.20.68.15 (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read HELP:YFA. You appear to have a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:32, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 2405:201:400C:B8:1BA0:DB11:715D:C534

[edit]

What was lacking in the particular article, and what steps are needed to make it go live, the concerned person is notable in the CS and it would be beneficial to add his name in accords. 2405:201:400C:B8:1BA0:DB11:715D:C534 (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to ask Jeraxmoira about this since they rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cillian Paul / User:2405:201:400C:B8:1BA0:DB11:715D:C534, the subject is not notable. The sources you have used are primary, i.e. sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Here, the first seven sources are the subject's website, profile and event listings, including their LinkedIn profile. Sources 8-12 are papers published by the subject, which do not pass WP:NACADEMIC. I did a google search on the subject and found only directory/profile listings. I suggest working on a different subject or improving existing articles. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:58, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Sussyshibainu

[edit]

What is wrong with this wiki page? Sussyshibainu (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sussyshibainu There is nothing right with it. It has been rejected. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even vandalise anything this is my own page u meanie >:( Sussyshibainu (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sussyshibainu You appear not to be here to create an encyclopaedia. Please either make sensible, useful edits, or just stop editing at all. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Nayyn

[edit]

Hello Disclosure-- this is not my draft

But I am wondering why this article fails "WP:N"

When there are: Multiple suitable sources cited about this individual, and the sources indicate WP:SUSTAINED

For WP:SPORTSPERSON this individual has made " a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" in the case of his Alma Mater and the ACC record for minutes played in the tournament. There are a number of other Sportspeople with pages on this site that have less notable records ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giannis_Christofilopoulos so I'm not sure why this individual is not considered notable for their contributions as a coach?

Is this because they are not a professional player? Nayyn (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nayyn: When the draft was declined back in June, there were very few sources, and nothing to indicate that the person was notable. The draft looks very different now. I don't know the topic area and can't evaluate whether the draft shows notability now or not, but it did not show it back then at any rate. --bonadea contributions talk 10:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bonadea many thanks for the reply. As it is some months now since June and there has been a number of edits to it to show its relevance.. is it still waiting for review or could I move it to the mainspace?
This individual is notable for both his playing and coaching career.
Playing: Gainey played at NC State, a NCAA Division I school. Only 1% of the 537,438 High School Basketball players in the US will go on to play for a Division 1 school in Basketball, and fewer will go on to play four years and stand out in top tournaments, as Gainey did. Fewer will set records for his program, as Gainey did, especially considering his non-standout size for his position. https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/3/2/estimated-probability-of-competing-in-college-athletics.aspx
Coaching: Becoming an assistant basketball coach of one of the top programs in the United States is an incredibly rare feat especially considering his race and the amount of structural inequalities he faced to get to that position.
I am not a college basketball expert by any means, nor even a fan or follower of this sport, but it is clear even from a person with passing knowledge that this person is notable. Nayyn (talk) 12:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NM @Bonadea someone moved it already. Thank you @Theroadislong Nayyn (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 30 September 2024 review of submission by TheSquareTiger

[edit]

Please help me with it, I am new to creating articles. TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got the information from Japanese Wikipedia but changed it to English, also the links on that Japanese Wikipedia were those from YouTube as well as one's like TV Tokyo article on here TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSquareTiger: you cannot cite Japanese Wikipedia as a source. If the Japanese article cites sources which could be used to support the information here, you need to cite those sources directly.
Also, please do not create inline external links (including to the Japanese Wikipedia), as these are not allowed.
Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing.
This draft was additionally declined for lack of notability. You need to show that the subject satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NACTOR notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but the info I can get are just IMDB TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSquareTiger: IMDb is not considered reliable, as it is user-generated. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the citations linking to Japanese Wikipedia TheSquareTiger (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also added one's like the TV Asahi English website TheSquareTiger (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSquareTiger, first of all, stop submitting the draft for the moment. If you continue submitting it without fixing the problems, a reviewer will conclude the draft can't be improved and will reject it. Rejection means you pretty much have to give up, so you want to avoid that at all costs!
Next, read through WP:42, the 'golden rule' and also WP:BLP (biographies of living people), followed by WP:REFB (referencing for beginners). Your goal is to show that this person is notable. You do this by finding suitable sources (see WP:42 and WP:BLP) and then referencing those sources in the draft (see WP:REFB). Every single sentence in a BLP needs to be referenced by a good source. Start with your first sentence, make sure it's properly referenced, and then keep going. If a sentence has no references, delete it.
If you cannot find suitable references, then it might be too soon for this person to have an article. You can keep working on the draft and waiting until references can be found. References don't have to be in English (although we prefer English when possible) but they do have to meet all the criteria in WP:42. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Əhməd Qurbanov

[edit]

Hi. I added a lot of independent and reliable sources to the draft article. I really appreciate if you give some feedbacks about the article. I've already submitted this article for review. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer will leave you feedback if it is not accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, Before the review, I want to get helpful feedback. It is effective and time-saving way, I think. Əhməd Qurbanov (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to ask, but it duplicates effort. The whole point of submitting it is to request feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Əhməd Qurbanov The other side of this coin is that before the draft is submitted for review I (and others) have no interest in it. The submission triggers the review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 30 September 2024 review of submission by TheSquareTiger

[edit]

Please help me with this. TheSquareTiger (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSquareTiger: please don't open a new thread, just add to the existing one, if you have questions you'd like to answer. (This isn't really one.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 164.77.161.26

[edit]

What else can we add in this article?? 164.77.161.26 (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Rejection means it will not be considered further 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126

[edit]

matias 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 30 September 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126

[edit]

matias 2A02:C7C:B08D:D600:62AB:14FF:FE8C:126 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying, but the draft has been deleted as a test page. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are test edits. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:23, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Yolocalasshiphopfanboy

[edit]

For some reason this was rejected, because apparently "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.", even though there are at least two fans and the artist himself who need this page to exist. Please help me get this accepted. His music changed my life and I want this to exist. Also the president wants it too. Yolocalasshiphopfanboy (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yolocalasshiphopfanboy: not going to happen. This draft has been rejected, and is awaiting speedy deletion. You shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, and any sort of promotion (including self-) is strictly not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered, but this isn't about myself, buddy. I could never do what yolocalasshiphop does. Maybe I'll try writing about him when he has 1000+ listeners. Yolocalasshiphopfanboy (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't write about yourself, ever. When you become notable, which likely isn't anytime soon considering your single-digit fan count, someone else will naturally write an article about you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Adipratamaa25

[edit]

for information on women's basketball tournaments between clubs in Asia Adipratamaa25 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adipratamaa25, your draft is unreferenced and therefore fails the core content policy of Verifiability. Please read Referencing for beginners. Also, it is too brief to be an informative encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:08, 30 September 2024 review of submission by Ethanjbrown03

[edit]

Hi my draft got declined on the 30th of Sept due to not having the following: in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements) reliable secondary strictly independent of the subject

This is my first time writing a Wikipedia page and I was just trying to get some understanding on how to navigate these resources, all of my references are independent and secondary sources, and I'm having a hard time finding any that 100% match the criteria just because of the industry. If you have any ideas or suggestions, I would really appreciate it.

Thank you. Ethanjbrown03 (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanjbrown03: Your issue is you're running flat into WP:CORPDEPTH. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You have one source that's usable. That isn't enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 01:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Ethanjbrown03. 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. ColinFine (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 1

[edit]

00:59, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Hakimia1

[edit]

What can do to resubmit Hakimia1 (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hakimia1 you can't, as the draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:18, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Sudheesh Sudhakaran

[edit]

Gopal Menon is a renowned documentary film maker from India. Many of his works which are politically relevant in the National level where reported and discussed in various media. Most of the statements in the article are from the most reputed news papers like The Hindu, Indian Express etc. I donot know why the article has been rejected Sudheesh Sudhakaran (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sudheesh Sudhakaran: the draft (not yet article) has been declined (not rejected) for the reasons given on the decline notice, namely that there is insufficient evidence of notability. You need to provide evidence that the subject satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:FILMMAKER guideline for notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that Gopal Menon lacks sufficient evidence of notability. Here are some links that demonstrate his notability based on WP:FILMMAKER guideline:
This article, published in The Hindu, a highly reputable national newspaper in India, discusses Gopal Menon's work as a documentary filmmaker.
https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/life-in-a-documentary/article5668047.ece
This article, published in The Hindu, discusses Gopal Menon's work as a documentary filmmaker and his contributions to the field.
https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/an-edge-over-television/article5770004.ece
This article, published in The News Minute, another well-respected national news outlet in India, highlights Gopal Menon's documentary about a pellet injury survivor in Kashmir.
https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/documentary-tells-touching-tale-pellet-injury-survivor-kashmir-136068
This article, published in The Hindu, discusses Gopal Menon's work as a documentary filmmaker.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140712001601/http://hindu.com/thehindu/lf/2002/05/05/stories/2002050500260200.htm
Below given are articles about his latest short film which discusses sexual violence and social auditing faced by people with disabilities. The News Minute is the most reputed independent English online media from the South India. The New Indian Express is one of the most reputed newspapers in the country.
https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/how-a-malayalam-short-throws-light-on-issues-of-persons-with-intellectual-disability
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2023/Dec/02/short-film-madithatu-to-be-released-on-international-day-for-persons-with-disabilities-2638137.html
This is another article which mentions Gopal Menon and the political importance of his documentary
https://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/sadanand-menon-the-mounting-filmic-attack-on-modi-109100200036_1.html
Moreover, there is a book titled 'Independent Documentary Filmmakers in India,' written by Rajesh James and published by Bloomsbury Publishing. The book has a chapter about Gopal Menon.
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/India_Retold/jnQxEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0
Each sentence in the draft has a citation to articles like this. Sudheesh Sudhakaran (talk) 06:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:43, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Abhisheknandan2003

[edit]

What is issue here? Abhisheknandan2003 (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhisheknandan2003: the 'issue' is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, where we publish articles on encyclopaedic subjects that are deemed notable. It is not a platform for you to tell the world about yourself; for that, you will need to find a social media or blogging platform, or some such. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:10, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Garyshack

[edit]

Could you help in reviewing my submitted article? TIA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Garyshack/Propelrr Garyshack (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garyshack: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted the draft, and it will be reviewed in due course when a reviewer comes along to assess it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:52, 1 October 2024 review of submission by POT7

[edit]

I need help I’m trying to draft a page but it gets declined because there isn’t enough coverage but there isn’t because there isn’t all at to talk about so i need someone to help me POT7 (talk) 06:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

POT7 I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. We can't create sources for you. If they don't exist, she would not merit an article at this time. You need to show she is a notable creative professional or more broadly a a notable person.
The image of her was uploaded by an account named POT9. Do you have anything to do with that? 331dot (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @POT7. Please read No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. ColinFine (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 1 October 2024 review of submission by 210.19.145.98

[edit]

I need to know what is there to fix in terms of the information that is needed to launch the page. Besides all the other tips given what else can I do? 210.19.145.98 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to summarize significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not just documentation of the financial performance of the company or its routine activities. You need to show that the company is notable as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, IP user. Your words "launch the page" sound as if you have the (very common) misunderstanding that Wikipedia is like social media - a place to tell the world about yourself. It is not: it is an encyclopaedia, which contains neutrally written articles about notable subjects.
If Wikipedia ever has an article about your company, whoever creates it, the article will not belong to your company , will not be controlled by your company, will not necessarily say what your company would like it to say, may be edited by almost anybody in the world except representatives of your company, and should be based almost 100% on what people wholly unconnected with your company have published about it, not on what your company says or wants to say. Please see WP:PROUD. ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:20, 1 October 2024 review of submission by DavidJimPaulSean

[edit]

the article is getting rejected .. cite and sources have been added. The article is of interest for a band with 2 EPs and an album out , with another EP to be released this year DavidJimPaulSean (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to promote your band. Our only concern is if it meets WP:BAND,.amd it doesn't seem to, which is why it was rejected and won't be considered further at this time.
Your username is problematic as it suggests all the band members have access to it. Please change it via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 1 October 2024 review of submission by 83.233.139.157

[edit]

hell how can wikipedia be on the cutting edge of history if it is not part of history written?

Brodour is a new thing, an objective thing. It was generated from the mind expressed on the internet, brotha! I suspect soyboys on the internet think it is against wikipedia statutes as they cannot bench press 200 kg or nail a perfect squat. After a heavy session you have a brodour.

Go get lost in your own navels 83.233.139.157 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question is this: Wikipedia is not supposed to be on the cutting edge of history! --bonadea contributions talk 12:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is written as a pseudo-intellectual treatise trying to push a neologism and a product at the same time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:06, 1 October 2024 review of submission by Santak1ng

[edit]

I'm new as a contributor at Wikipedia so I don't know all the ins and outs but I'm a bit confused about why my page about Hemnet wasn't accepted. Reading through the reasons given (see below), I don't really understand, maybe someone can clarify?

in-depth – Hemnet is one of the biggest web pages in Sweden, the company is listed at Nasdaq and a Wikipedia page about Hemnet already exists in Swedish. So I wanted to create a stub so I can translate the Swedish page to English. Should I have done anything else for my article to be considered a stub?

relilable – all the information in the article is clearly linked to reliable pages

secondary and independent – I've stated that I have a COI, as I am an employee of the company. But that shouldn't matter since all the things in the article are documented facts. Why have a COI label if COI content is automatically dismissed? Santak1ng (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hej @Santak1ng:, welcome to the Teahouse and thank you for disclosing your connection to Hemnet. The problem with the sourcing is that only Hemnet itself is used as a source. If you follow the links to read about secondary and independent sources, you'll see that it's got nothing to do with your own COI but with the fact that Wikipedia is almost entirely uninterested in what a company publishes about itself. I would be very surprised if there were not sufficiently many secondary and independent sources talking about Hemnet in some detail (I mean, here's a scholarly article about it!) but at the moment, the draft does not include any of them. (The tone of the draft is also not quite what is required from an encyclopedia article, but that's a different issue). Start by finding secondary and independent sourcing, and then build a draft from what those sources say, rather than on your own knowledge. --bonadea contributions talk 13:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:36, 1 October 2024 review of submission by 103.166.59.60

[edit]

It is a Documentary Films. This should be published on Wikipedia. I have shared external links. If you need more proof tell me and I will provide proof.

Please tell me what information is required. 103.166.59.60 (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to promote (i.e. tell the world about) anything: please use social media or promotion sites for that.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: it summarises what has already been published about a subject.
If the film has been written about in some depth by people wholly unconnected with the film, published in reliable places, then it is possible an article could be written about it; but that article would be based upon what those independent people had chosen to publish, not about what the makers or promoters of the film want to say.
Please see your first article and WP:NFILM. ColinFine (talk) 14:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 1 October 2024 review of submission by AlyannadV

[edit]

Need help in redrafting to be more neutral AlyannadV (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlyannadV Let me take an example of the current phraseology: "New Lab, situated in the historic Brooklyn Navy Yard, is a co-working space for tech entrepreneurs and fabricators, with a focus in fields ranging from artificial intelligence to interactive architecture." is straight from a brochure selling that space. What value does it add to an encyclopaedia article to have 'selling words' within it?
There are other examples, not hard to find.
My advice to you is to cut, cut and cut again until you have crafted 'dull-but-worthy' prose in all the sentences which remain after your cutting has had its first pass. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. AlyannadV (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AlyannadV, multidisciplinary in the first sentence strikes me as vapid corporate jargon. Does the company also operate dental care clinics? Do they have astrophysicists on their payroll to investigate the origins of the universe? Are they employing Broadway playwrights? What the heck does this word mean, and which reliable independent sources use it when discussing this business venture? Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined Insufficient editing to remove the marketing verbiage. I have asked you a formal question on your user talk page about paid editing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2

[edit]

07:41, 2 October 2024 review of submission by Sargimaanmusic

[edit]

submitted links of All Songs of Sargi Maan through times of india and You tube links of respective channels on which songs are released

kindly guide what reliable source can be added to verify the page Sargimaanmusic (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, if you work for her, you are required by the Terms of Use to make the stricter paid editing disclosure.
You misunderstand what a Wikipedia article about a musician should do. It should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. We don't want just documentation of her work, but independent sources discussing her.
YouTube is not generally a reliable source as it lacks editorial oversight and is user-editable- unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on its verified channel. The Times of India is generally not considered a reliable source.
The awards do not contribute to notability as the awards themselves do not seem to have articles(like Grammy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). 331dot (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:42; it could be helpful when looking for sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 2 October 2024 review of submission by Jooliah

[edit]

Hi, is there anyway I can improve this submission for approval? Jooliah (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jooliah, you may read HELP:YFA and WP:42. Keep asking questions, and keep improving the draft, that way, you may appeal to the rejecting reviewer to consider. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:39, 2 October 2024 review of submission by Kavanihelper

[edit]

This is my first article. I am a young researcher who loves to research about Indian Football. I would request wiki admins to kindly help me to publish my research page and suggest improvements if any. I am ready to answer all the questions! Kavanihelper (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavanihelper Some of the best help I can give you is to ask you to note the comment by SafariScribe when they declined it. They asked "What's the purpose of this compilation?" and I agree with them. You have worked hard, but without purpose, without the end result in mind.
Please answer for yourself their question and you will have a clearer idea how to edit this.
By the way, admins are here by coincidence, but their primary role is to clear up the messes the rest of us leave behind. They are janitors more than anything else. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:05, 2 October 2024 review of submission by Annaleshiapillay01

[edit]

Please can I get my article reviewed I have added citations to my article. Thanks Annaleshiapillay01 (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "resubmit" button to get your draft re-reviewed. But it is pretty clear, first that you have written the draft WP:BACKWARDS, and secondly (just from the titles - I haven't looked at the sources themselves) that the citations you have added are not enough to establish notability, as they are mostly either interviews or routine business coverage.
Where have independent commentators written in depth about the company? ColinFine (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Annaleshiapillay01 I have left a comment on the draft. It tells you that it woudl be declined if it were reviewed today. It suggests further work. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 2 October 2024 review of submission by Karinvanderlaag

[edit]
ACCEPTED
This discussion has led to the editing and acceptance of the draft. No further action required 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Draft:Karin van der Laag was originally published in another language called Hasha. I can't seem to access the original page in English as I would like someone to work on it and re-instate it in English. I have many more sources than the original article that appeared. Karinvanderlaag (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Karinvanderlaag There are some difficulties you will face, especially since any new work by you will be an autobiography. The first and most important is that almost no-one is able to write a neutral draft about themselves. This means that any reviews that decline the draft will have a personal effect on you. It will feel as if you are being attacked. You will not be attacked, but the feeling will be there.
The next, of at least equal importance, is the finding of references which meet the English Language Wikipedia's very strict criteria.
Most people write WP:BACKWARDS, starting with what they wish to say, especially about themselves, and finding references which are not a good fit. Do the reverse. Start with excellent references, see what can be said and sort the references into a storyboard. Then, write in your own words what others say about you in those references.
Know in advance that others who review the draft may disagree with you. You and I have too much history for me to review your putative draft, so I will not do so.
It may be possible to translate the Hausa article. Please do not use machine translation. If you do translate it please deploy {{Translated page}} on the draft's talk page with parameters filled in to the best of your ability. Please be very clear that the Hausa Wikipedia may have substantially less strict criteria for acceptance.
"Many more sources" may not be useful. A few excellent sources are better than any number of poor ones. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please will a reviewer here who has not been party to prior discussions with the creating editor offer her advice, especially if it differs from mine. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've about covered anything anyone else would have to say. -- asilvering (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping so. While we can't provide a full manual in the creation of articles on this help desk, especially autobiographies, we have not always advised Karinvanderlaag as well as we might have done, and have caused her annoyance. I want to seek to ensure that we are doing the best for her that we are able to do, the more so since we are now out of the two areas where she has been a (declared) paid editor. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:24, 3 October 2024 (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.

15:40, 2 October 2024 review of submission by 128.235.159.4

[edit]

My submission for this page was decline. I was looking for more information to fix the errors before resubmitting. 128.235.159.4 (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the draft that the person is notable according to Wikipedia's definition. In addition to that, all the references point to his own website. As the decline notice explains, sources must be independent and secondary in order to show notability. And looking at the "Personal Life" section I'm not even sure if it is supposed to be a serious attempt at writing an article. --bonadea contributions talk 17:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:59, 2 October 2024 review of submission by Amanatadverse17

[edit]

Subject: Request for Help Regarding Rejected Draft of "Ashish Chanchlani"

Message: Hello,

I recently worked on creating a draft for the article on Ashish Chanchlani, and after putting in significant time and effort, the draft was rejected despite my attempts to modify it properly. I understand that one of the reasons for rejection might be related to notability, but I firmly believe that Ashish Chanchlani is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, given his prominence in the digital content space.

I would really appreciate it if an experienced editor could help me understand what specific improvements are needed to make the article meet Wikipedia's notability standards and guidelines. I have added sources, but there might be gaps or areas I did not cover adequately.

Additionally, I would be grateful if, after the necessary improvements are made, the draft could be restored from the rejected status and moved to the main article space.

Your guidance will be very helpful for me to get this article accepted, as I strongly believe it deserves to be part of Wikipedia.

Thank you so much for your time and assistance. 

Amanatadverse17 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, and Wikipedia's definition of notability is completely unrelated to popularity. There have been several exhaustive discussions about Chanchlani's notability, and the current draft doesn't show any indication that he has become notable since the most recent discussion a couple of years ago. --bonadea contributions talk 18:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even if the rejection were reversed, the article can't be created except by an administrator, because the title has been fully protected after years of relentless attempts to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform by Chanchlani's marketing people. That kind of full protection is not put in place very frequently. --bonadea contributions talk 18:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amanatadverse17, I know it seems strange that wikipedia doesn't think a youtuber with millions and millions of subscribers is notable, but the only thing we really care about is WP:42. The last discussion was in 2021, so he may have become notable since then, but you'll have to show that with high-quality sources that postdate 2021. -- asilvering (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:30, 2 October 2024 review of submission by EnochRoot1969

[edit]

I am not quite sure how to improve the citations (which I am given to understand are problematic and preventing the article from being published.) I am not sure if it the formatting of the citations or the nature/source of the citations themselves or a mixture of both. Any assistance or direction would be very helpful and appreciated. EnochRoot1969 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EnochRoot1969, it will really, really help the reviewers if you can provide URLs to the newspaper articles you're citing. If you can't do that, because you accessed the newspapers offline, please at least give us enough information to be able to find the relevant article - the title, the date, and the page. -- asilvering (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:36, 2 October 2024 review of submission by Amirziaow

[edit]

om i want know how i can edit this draft for publish Amirziaow (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Amirziaow, this is a resume/CV, and is not suitable for wikipedia. My advice is to abandon the effort and work on something else. -- asilvering (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amirziaow press Edit on the top right of the draft to edit it. Press “Resubmit” at the end of the red box at the top of the draft to submit for publishing, but only after the issues are fixed or it will just be declined again. — Karnataka 20:59, 2 October 2024 (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 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. 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) 16:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:09, 2 October 2024 review of submission by 71.167.113.184

[edit]

HI, how do I make this wiki compliant? Would love to document restaurants in the East Village of Manhattan. Citations provided. 71.167.113.184 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that resubmission is not possible. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 3

[edit]

03:23, 3 October 2024 review of submission by HurricaneKirk2024

[edit]

May I start over from the beginning, or is that not allowed? I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was other people to help build on an article, and I had no help at all. Please help me in my journey. I have nothing left to do. Please help me. HurricaneKirk2024 (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HurricaneKirk2024. While I understand from your username that this is a topic you're particularly interested in, it is not notable for Wikipedia's purposes, so starting over would serve no point. If you want to write a Wikipedia article, your best bet is to find a different topic, one that is well-covered in reliable sources, and write it from scratch, without the use of AI. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HurricaneKirk2024, Writ Keeper has covered half of your questions, so I'll finish the other half: Wikipedia is indeed about collaborating to work on the encyclopedia, and when drafts become articles people may (or may not!) start wandering in to change and improve things. However, writing the draft is usually a one-person task: someone is interested in a particular subject, and does research on it, and decides it's interesting and notable by Wikipedia standards, and writes a draft about it. If it is truly notable, the draft becomes an article, and off we go.
Writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It requires knowledge of many policies and guidelines. You also cannot use ChatGPT or any other AI to help you write; we need humans to create the articles, humans who have done proper research and learned how to write Wikipedia articles. Most of the editors on this board will tell you that you should begin by working on current articles, so you get an idea of what's needed. We have millions of articles that need help in many different ways, so whatever you're into will undoubtedly have some articles that need your time and energy. You could, if you wished, go see what WikiProject Tropical cyclones is up to and maybe find some articles you're interested in there. That would be my suggestion for you, anyway. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:21, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Nightfly2008

[edit]

My article has been declined three times. In each instance, I tried to improve it based on the suggestions. I still believe the subject is notable enough to warrant an article, but I seem to be unable to convince the editors. Could someone with more experience give me a more detailed explanation as to what exactly I can do to improve it? Thank you. Nightfly2008 (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfly2008 I see you have resubmitted it for review. A reviewer will review it in due course. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did submit as it takes a lot of time, but I can keep editing it while waiting. Nightfly2008 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightfly2008: yes, you can continue editing the draft while waiting for a review. Just be aware that a review can happen at any time, so try to make sure that you save your work frequently, and that with each save the draft is a complete entity, in case it gets reviewed.
Note also that as you have disclosed a COI in this subject, by extension you also have a COI in related subjects (each which you should also disclose separately, BTW). This means that you should not have published Paradise Lost (Inal Bilsel album) directly into the main article space, but should have put it through an AfC review also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your comments and pointing me to the right direction. The other article you mention is in the deletion process as you know. I am new here and I am really trying to do it the right way but the guidelines are sometimes a bit overwhelming. The notability guideline for music/artists state that at least one criteria should be met. The article I am working on does meet this criteria: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Thanks for your valuable input. Nightfly2008 (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:11, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Omar Azami

[edit]

I am publishing an article based on a close friend of mine. I am trying to build the page on a step by step basis, but it looks like I haven't quite passed the requirements.

I would like to understand where I am going wrong and what I can do to help rectify the situation.

Thank you Omar Omar Azami (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omar Azami: I have rejected your draft, as I didn't see anything there to suggest that the person is notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word; notability being a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.
Also for future reference, you should not be writing an article based on what you know about a subject, you should instead summarise what reliable and independent third parties (ideally secondary sources) have previously published about it. You then cite those sources against the information they have provided, which gives you the necessary referencing to satisfy another core requirement of course, namely verifiability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your prompt reply. It is greatly appreciated. I am very new to Wikipedia and the person I am writing about is well known in his friend as well as his background. I know he has enough information to be included on Wikipedia, but the error is coming from my lack of understanding on how to write an article rather than the person I am writing about.
What is the best why to move forward and edit the article and have it resubmitted please?
Thank you Omar Azami (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omar Azami: rejection normally means the end of the road for a draft, but on this occasion I'm happy to take another look if you can base this on appropriate sources (which, in practice, means rewriting the draft pretty much completely).
In a nutshell:
  1. Start by finding a few (3-5) published sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability guideline, namely: independent and reliable secondary sources that have provided significant coverage of the subject.
  2. Summarise what they have said. This must be done in your own words, but without putting any additional 'spin' on things.
  3. Cite each source directly against the information it has provided. For advice on referencing, see WP:REFB.
If you wish, you can run the sources by us here at the help desk, or at my talk page, to check that they are acceptable per WP:GNG before you begin your editing work. Notability depends exclusively on the sources, so it's important to get it right from the outset, as otherwise your efforts may be in vain. I suggest you study the GNG guideline carefully before you start. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Thank you for your prompt reply again and the opportunity to resubmit the draft. I will work based on the advice you have given.
I appreciate your help.
Thank you Omar Azami (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Omar. One of the things that makes it difficult to write an article about a friend is that once you have found the independent sources, you will need to forget everything you know about your friend, and base your article on what those sources say. What you know is not relevant: either it is in one of the sources, and you take it from there, or it isn't, and it cannot go into the article. ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:29, 3 October 2024 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004

[edit]

my draft was declined, the reason why I made this draft was to finally split out NTV's corporate functions from the station article…to avoid big confusions, there is an article on NTVHD on the Japanese Wikipedia, but why not here? VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: without commenting on whether a separate article is actually warranted for the 'Holdings' corporate entity, if I've understood you correctly and you're effectively proposing to split Nippon Television into two articles, then you should follow the procedure set out at WP:SPLIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:10, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Janep1814

[edit]

I first submitted this article for publication several months ago. It has been turned down on several occasions, each time for a different reason. In each subsequent submission, I've dealt with the issue mentioned explaining why the article can't be published. In the meantime, I've also revised the text, deleted images and provided the requested copyright details for others. Given the importance of the precedence created by Adrienne Cullen's case in relation to hospital liability, I don't really understand why this article can't be published. Can you please advise. janep1814 Janep1814 (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Janep1814: I can only see two previous declines, both for the primary reason of lack of notability. If you have multiple drafts on this subject, or if there's something else I'm missing, do let me know.
You most recently resubmitted this on 10 Aug, which is less than two months ago, and as you may have seen from the templated message on top of the draft, reviews may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,285 pending submissions waiting for review. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing - Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'll wait. Janep1814 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Pvesters

[edit]

What needs to be improved? Pvesters (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pvesters: We don't cite IMDb or Twitch (no editorial oversight). https://startpeople.nl/kenniscentrum/artikel/wat-houdt-het-in-om-uitzendkracht-te-zijn is written by Vesters and thus useless for notability. You need third-party sources that discuss him at length and have undergone editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 3 October 2024 review of submission by Ncouture

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Polymer_Cement_Concrete was asked to be moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_Concrete after "being improved" but I cannot locate where the improvements wanted are outlined.

Can someone please advise?

In addition, I understand the fact that I have created the draft:Polymer Cement Concrete and draft:Polymer Modified Concrete under sub-pages of Polymer Concrete and that "is [[contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia][1]" but there is no explanation as to why it is.

Could someone please explain?

Nicolas Couture (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC) Nicolas Couture (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ncouture: This is essentially a fork that does not meaningfully distinguish itself from the primary topic; it was rejected because it was apparent to the reviewer that this would be better off incorporated into polymer concrete rather than spun off into its own article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been me I would have adapted the page and merged it in the page they wanted it in, now this is highly confusing, moreover I still have doubts that they would reject my changes after merging into the page they said it should belong in.
IMO it shouldn't belong in it because Polymer Modified Concrete is not Polymer Concrete and both are not Polymer Cement Concrete.
They are all different types of concrete!
Nicolas Couture (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon for articles to include sections on related topics. Just because they're all "different types of concrete" doesn't matter if they're similar enough that it would be better to just include a section on them in the main article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:47, 3 October 2024 review of submission by BrocadeRiverPoems

[edit]

I'm sorry, I am growing increasingly confused at the conflicting instructions I have received regarding this draft. The draft has been most recently rejected and I was told Rewording a sentence isn't really going to help with notability despite the fact that the previous reviewer Special:Diff/1248430313 told me The sentence "Little is known about the life of Han E" is what makes me decline your draft. I recommend removing that and resubmitting, after the previous previous reviewer Special:Diff/1248224834 had told me that adding the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women would be sufficient for notability per WP:ANYBIO. One reviewer tells me the source achieves notability, so I add the source, the draft is rejected because of a sentence, I change the sentence as requested and the next person rejects the draft because changing the sentence is apparently not sufficient for achieving notability despite being told previously the source from the first rejection supposedly achieves notability. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 22:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BrocadeRiverPoems, your draft has not been rejected which means "this is the end of the line". Instead, it has been declined, which means "you can keep working on it by making substantive improvements". Resubmitting after making only trivial changes is a poor strategy. As for different reviewers focusing on different aspects of the draft, that is commonplace. As an editor with over 15 years of experience on Wikipedia, I often read a draft and say to myself "this draft has nine obvious problems but in my review, I will focus on the three most glaring and substantive problems." Another editor may later review the draft and conclude "I think problems #4 and #5 are pretty serious too, so let's discuss them". On to an overview of your draft. When I read it, I have no idea whether or not this person ever existed. You describe her as "legendary" but Elvis Presley was a legendary singer and Paul Bunyan was a legendary lumberjack. Presley existed but Bunyan didn't. Why don't you cite any scholars who evaluate the historicty of this person? Your prose is shot through with ambiguity. You use wording such as who is believed to be to which I say "believed by whom? If the person is fictional, then why would anyone believe anything about them? If she was real, then where is the evidence? You write is said to have travelled and it was said that her singing resonated there for three days. Who specifically said those things and what credibity does that person or persons have? You write The authenticity of these stories is unclear and then you write Han E's story is not recorded in the historical Record of Music, implying that latter work is definitive. After reading your draft, I know more about what is not known about her than what is known. I see no basis for an encyclopedia article based on such thin reeds. Cullen328 (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmitting after making only trivial changes is a poor strategy.
I resubmitted the article after making the changes that were requested to be made. The previous reviewer literally recommended me to just remove a sentence. Their exact words were: The sentence "Little is known about the life of Han E" is what makes me decline your draft. I recommend removing that and resubmitting. It's not a strategy, I did what the only recommendation I was given suggested I do.
Why don't you cite any scholars who evaluate the historicty of this person? Your prose is shot through with ambiguity.
Because none of them do. The one Chinese source that addresses the authenticity literally just says it's going to set aside the issue of the authenticity. Another scholar says "She's mentioned in this Taoist book, but not the Record of Music", another scholar says "She's credited for creating this style of music, but Mencius credits someone else". I have made notes of all of that. My prose is shot through with ambiguity because literally every source that disucsses this individual is much the same, and I can't just unambiguously state things when the sources don't.
Hence why when I asked if the Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women conferred notability, I said:
The problem I'm running into now, however, is I've exhausted everything I can find on the person. Does having an entry in the Biographical dictionary of Chinese women meet the notability requirement? If not, I am out of ideas on trying to save this article
For the record, I didn't create the article, someone else did. When I was on my way to propose deleting it, someone had moved it to draftspace, so I decided to try and fix the article since it was just verbatim quoting the account of Han'e in the Chinese text, except translated into English. I hardly considered the contents of an article that began with what amounted to "Once upon a time," worth keeping, so I fixed the article and used what sources were available with what details they had.
If the person is fictional, then why would anyone believe anything about them? If she was real, then where is the evidence?
There isn't any conclusive evidence one way or the other whether she was real or fictional. The closest that anyone comes to addressing it is a Chinese source that says it isn't going to address the authenticity of the stories. Nobody says definitively whether she was real, or fictional, or if she was real and her life is just extremely dramatized, so on and so forth.
I see no basis for an encyclopedia article based on such thin reeds.
Yeah, and neither did I, but someone moved it to draftspace as I was about to propose it for deletion. So, I tried to improve it, and every step of the process I asked "Is this notable?" "Does this establish notability?", and when I made the changes I was asked to make, nothing has changed.
So to be completely clear on my stance:
If the article is not notable now, it is likely never going to be notable, and it should be deleted as I had first suspected it should be. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrocadeRiverPoems I think this draft has got to the point where we ought to make a choice to accept or abandon. A feasible approach is to accept and then, Because it may be just below the acceptance threshold, make a procedural nomination to WP:AFD in order that the community is asked to decide. I do not say that this is a recommended approach.
After considering this draft for a short period of quiet reflection, what are your thoughts, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on the article are unchanged. If it is not notable now, it is unlikely to ever be notable. While the proposed solution is an imperfect one, I'm willing to go through the process of doing it, but I am hesitant to potentially waste editor's time. It might be in the best interest of the Encyclopedia to simply delete this article as I had initially suspected should have been done. The information about Han'e can be included in the expansion of the Geji article, which was recently reduced to a stub due to the poor quality of the article, and which can be reasonably built back up with reliably sourced information. Frankly, I am not optimistic the article will survive AfD in any other capacity than being merged into Geji anyways. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 07:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrocadeRiverPoems Then I suggest you allow it to wither on the vine. In six months it will be weeded as G13. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Will do. Do I have to wait for the article to expire before putting the information about Han'e's story into the Geji article? Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrocadeRiverPoems Please go ahead and merge any useful and verifiable information to any appropriate article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I'll see to doing that tomorrow. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 4

[edit]

02:07, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Samuelzavada

[edit]

It's not clear to me why the draft with this title is being denied. The sources are varied, reliable and secondary. The subject is referenced on multiple Wikipedia pages already (ex. Breaking Benjamin, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, Herman J. Mankiewicz, The Badlees, etc.). I'd like to know what needs to be done for the page to meet the standard necessary. Samuelzavada (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Samuelzavada, let's see if I can help out. Going through your current sources, here's what I'm seeing:
Source 1, about the creation of the Hall of Fame, is basically reprinting a statement from the HoF - this doesn't contribute to notability as it's not independent.
Source 2, the 2023 inductees/2024 nominations, is also clearly not independent as it's using all the info from HoF itself.
Source 3, announcing the 2024 class, has information on the inductees - so it would probably be suitable as a source for biographies on them - but I'm not really seeing much about the HoF, just a few snippets of information here and there. It's more focused on the people, not the Hall, if that makes sense.
Source 4, also the 2024 class (Weekender source), is just a list of inductees and has nothing about the HoF, so that's not significant coverage.
Source 5, covering the ceremony, is also almost completely about the inductees rather than the HoF.
To me, it doesn't look like any of the sources are sufficiently focused on the HoF and independent. I know this is probably difficult because of course newspapers and so on are more interested in the people receiving honours, rather than the institution giving them, but I think you are looking for sources that focus solely on the Hall of Fame. If your first source was independent, it would be ideal. Does this make sense to you? StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, I think I can work with this. I appreciate the help.
Source 1: So if the article https://www.wvia.org/local/2022-10-20/new-hall-of-fame-established-in-luzerne-county was used as the first source for the establishment of the Hall of Fame, would that be more suitable? The same information is being reported, but it is not in the form of the Hall of Fame’s statement.
Source 2: This source is used specifically for the information that precedes it, which is that nominations can be submitted to the HoF by the public. The HoF is cited in the news story announcing the nomination process, but how else could the nomination process be revealed if not by the HoF itself?
Source 3: Again, this source is being used to say that there were 18 inductees in the class of 2023, and Source 4: is doing the same for the amount of inductees in the Class of 2024 (16). The number of inductees is only information that can be revealed by the HoF. There’s really no way to independently report that from what I know. The number of inductees is announced by the institution, not unlike the baseball, football or rock and roll halls of fame.
Source 5: The information that precedes this source is about the where, when, and happenings of the first ceremony. By this point in the draft, the information is no longer about the Hall of Fame exclusively, but about its accompanying event.
So with the first source now being more independent but still broadly about the Hall of Fame's operations, are we on the right track? Samuelzavada (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Samuelzavada! Okay, so I think I may have been unclear in my last response - if so, I apologize. I'm going to do my best to break down what you're trying to do in creating a draft/article. Please have a read through the various links because they'll have information that should help you.
The goal here is to show that your subject is notable by Wikipedia standards, which are not like ordinary standards. The way to do this is to locate and use sources that meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). Usually three or more sources are required for an article to come into existence.
For you, I think, the main problem at the moment is that your best sources are not independent - the first one reprints information directly from the Hall, but the new one is full of interviews and statements from people who have a stake in the Hall. It's still not independent. The source you want would be someone who's just wandered into town and been so impressed by the Hall that they decide, off their own bat and without talking to anyone involved, to write an article. I know this can be hard to find, because not many things are so interesting and impressive that someone decides to just go ahead and write about it - that's why most things aren't on Wikipedia.
If you Google the HoF, what comes up? If all you get are interviews with the founders, or lists of inductees, or reprints of information from the Hall, then it might be too soon to write about it.
I don't want to discourage you, but I do want to say that writing a draft/article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. There are plenty of veteran editors who haven't ever written an article, just edited some of the millions we already have. As a last link, I'm going to point you to Your First Article, which will hopefully cover anything I've missed. If you have more questions after reading through all of that, we're always here to answer and happy to try to help! :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thanks again for helping out. I really do appreciate it.
I'd direct you to a trio of pieces that are Hall of Fame-adjacent. The Hall of Fame was not involved in these things being posted.
- The video here is a newspaper publisher discussing the event on television. She's not on the Hall of Fame's selection committee. Her use of "we" in the context of the video is somewhat erroneous: https://www.pahomepage.com/pa-live/sponsored-content/extra-extra-luzerne-county-arts-entertainment-hall-of-fame-show-to-rock/?fbclid=IwY2xjawFtLB9leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXinU94wWwuBwMDf23SmEgxsOT6fK3yITclr_9U4YC6PVGjIrRDzEv0BwA_aem_c8HVgyghb3izXzLUSA-gvg
- The video at this address is from a guest at the induction ceremony who accepted the award on behalf of an inductee, but is not an inductee himself or the descendent of an inductee: https://www.ssptv.com/what-s-new
- This opinion piece was written by the editors of a newspaper who have no immediate stake in the Hall of Fame, other than some of the reporters being connected to Hall of Fame. But the editors themselves are not affiliated with the Hall of Fame's selection or main organizing committees: https://www.timesleader.com/opinion/1624284/luzerne-county-arts-and-entertainment-hall-of-fame-event-a-glittering-success?fbclid=IwY2xjawFtK_NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHV_ynvnPRYja5rqk3UHjpF4wA7LcvZUL3PUjRK2yu_YLGBn64Umn-LJq2A_aem_mmS4tPCpsuG9GTErVqhxrw
Just for context, I tried to find other sort-of niche Halls of Fame to see a real example of a source like you're describing. In searching, I noticed that the following page has only sources directly from the Hall of Fame and what appears to be its overseeing body (The State Library of Queensland): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Business_Leaders_Hall_of_Fame
Why would these sources, which are even more direct than the ones I've proposed for the LCAEHOF, be accepted by Wikipedia's standards?
Last thing I'd like to point out as far as notoriety, and I know this isn't exactly what the the guidelines are referring to, but Wikipedia itself has made the Hall of Fame more notable by containing pages for numerous LCAEHOF inductees. Those include Joseph and Herman Mankiewicz, Breaking Benjamin, The Badlees, George Catlin, Jack Palance, and more. So it seems slightly counter-intuitive to have each of these notable figures with an individual page, but an accomplishment they've each received goes unnoticed. Further, the LCAEHOF is mentioned on Wikipedia's articles for the following:
The Badlees
Breaking Benjamin
The Buoys
George Catlin
Hammond Edward "Ham" Fisher (Ham Fisher)
Jimmy Harnen
Santo Loquasto
Jack Palance
Eddie Day Pashinski
Adrian Pearsall
Lee Vincent
Franz Kline
Shawn Klush
Herman J. Mankiewicz
Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Legends of WARMland (WARM AM)
All of this is to say that Wikipedia has already offered some legitimacy to the LCAEHOF by allowing it to be mentioned on 16 of its existing pages. Samuelzavada (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That a topic is mentioned in an article or articles does not in and of itself mean it merits an article of its own. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that makes sense to me. But I'd contend that this isn't just a random, unsourced detail or phrase that just happens to be on more than one page. It's a very specific thing that multiple artists with the Wikipedia seal of approval have accomplished. Samuelzavada (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So one fun thing to keep in mind is that a lot of articles were created when Wikipedia was young and standards were much lower - a kind of Big Bang where articles exploded into existence with little or no sourcing. The Queensland Hall of Fame article was created in 2017 and it wouldn't get past the draft stage if it were going through the process today. I'm going to have a look for better sources, and if none are found, I'll nominate it for deletion. That might sound harsh, but this is what's meant to happen to subpar articles, and you're helping improve Wikipedia by pointing out something that's a problem. This is what I mean by a lot of articles; there are literally millions of articles and not enough editors to patrol them all. We need more people to point out the problems so we can fix them! Using other articles as an example can be a hazard for this reason. If you want to keep looking, see if you can find articles with a Good Article or Featured Article tag (either a green plus sign/circle or a gold star in the top right) - those have been vetted by the community and are considered to be, uh...Good Articles. I did a search for 'hall of fame' and found Hockey Hall of Fame and WWE Hall of Fame, so maybe those will be helpful? Obviously they're not niche HoFs, but they would be good examples to model yours on.
Looking at the sources you've offered:
1) Video with the publisher, PA Homepage - alarm bells go off for me when I see 'sponsored content', because that immediately says to me it's no longer independent or reliable. Someone has paid for this content. It's great that the website makes this so clear, but this won't help for notability.
Pausing for a second here to also say that most of these sources could be used for information - you can get uncontroversial information like a list of inductees from a subject's website or interview or whatever - but what you really want right now is 'golden rule' sources that count for notability. A draft could have a hundred sources that give information, but without three good sources for notability it won't become an article. Now back to the sources:
2) Video about Jack Palance - we tend to shy away from YouTube videos because we can't know how much (if any) editorial oversight takes place for the channel, and how much fact-checking they do. I did skip through it anyway, and it seemed to be focused on the actor, which is of course perfectly reasonable for giving/accepting an award for him, but less helpful for the Hall of Fame.
3) Now this one I'm less positive on, and maybe someone else would disagree, but I see 'We at the Times Leader were proud to be involved in the project, which was especially important to one of our own, reporter and columnist Bill O’Boyle. He and local music legend Joe Nardone Sr. were recognized with Founders Awards...' and again 'independent' seems to go out the window.
I know it probably seems like I'm discarding things for weird reasons, but my hope is that if I can explain to you why various sources won't be accepted, you'll be able to figure out whether new ones you find are good - and also get an idea of whether this draft is viable. I really appreciate you taking the feedback in the spirit it was intended; if this draft can become an article, I'm more than happy to (virtually) sit with you until it's in the mainspace. And of course if you'd like me to step back and get some feedback from someone else, I won't be offended at all - just let me know and I'll try to rustle someone else up to help out. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:32, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Dsultaan4

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I recently submitted an article about Arun Adhikari, a notable artist known for his work in television and films. Unfortunately, the article was flagged for speedy deletion under the criteria for promoting a person or entity. I would like to contest this decision as the intent of the article was to provide an encyclopedic account of Arun Adhikari’s career, achievements, and contributions to the entertainment industry.

I understand Wikipedia’s guidelines on avoiding promotional content, and I am willing to revise the article to better align with Wikipedia's standards. Could you please advise on the specific changes that are needed to ensure that the article meets the criteria for inclusion?

Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your guidance.

Best regards, Sultan Dsultaan4 (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dsultaan4, if you wish to contest the speedy deletion, there's a button on the draft page you need to click. Do that first, right now, and then we can help you see the promotional wording in the draft. StartGrammarTime (talk)

06:54, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Searching Nan

[edit]

I am currently working on a biography for Aniyan Midhun, a notable individual with extensive references and verified details. However, his profile is still not recognized on Wikipedia. I would appreciate your guidance on what additional steps I can take to ensure the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and gets published. Searching Nan (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Searching Nan Do you have some form of WP:COI on this topic, please?
The draft has been rejected. This means it has reached the end of the road unless you can prevail on the rejecting reviewer to change their mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three deletion discussions plus extensive review of your rejected draft show that there is widespread consensus that this person is not notable. You need to abandon this effort. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:17, 4 October 2024 review of submission by WikiMeets

[edit]

Please reevaluate the new sources thank you. WikiMeets (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiMeets It was suggested to you that a total rewrite was required. Nothing has happened here since that suggestion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been rewritten, waiting for approval. WikiMeets (talk) 08:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiMeets When the ship is sinking, rearranging the deckchairs is somewhat pointless.
I see nothing than indicates any new material since its rejection, and no new references.
I suggest you abandon this effort of editing and do what is suggested - a total rewrite - starting with referencers. This is written WP:BACKWARDS.
If you can find references which show notability, then, and only then, write the article in a new draft, saying in your won words what others say about the organisation. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the alleged rewrite(!) was posted after my messages of 08:20 UTC today. With the greatest possible respect, please state with precision whom you are trying to fool? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:28, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Bfkamo

[edit]

i am new in article writing so plz help me to create a article Bfkamo (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It is written almost like a travel brochure, and not an encyclopedia article. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Ashthetic

[edit]

I keep getting feedback that the sources listed here are not reliable and I'm looking for guidance on why they're unreliable, and what are examples I should be including instead. The Real Deal is a news outlet focusing on real estate and is constantly sourced in this submission; I'm wondering if that's why it's not considered reliable. I am unsure why because they are editorial pieces, and go through an editing process with multiple editors. Would appreciate any guidance! Ashthetic (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashthetic Without going into them in detail, any reference that is a Press Release, or a PR Piece (often regurgitated as churnalism) is useless for verifying notability, Any reference mainstream media, provided it contains significant coverage (three or more well constructed paragraphs), is independent of the subject, and is about the subject is useful. Directly entries may verify uncontroversial facts, but add no value to notability. WP:42 is a decent shorthand to understanding. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:16, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Brightest Child

[edit]

What can I do for my page to be published? Brightest Child (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted it for a review. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brightest Child: waiting two years until the mixtape is actually released would be a start. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And PS: once a draft is rejected, you're not meant to submit again; that's what rejection means – the end of the road. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:26, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 50.34.35.185

[edit]

This is a draft. is it not? Big balls is a placement. 50.34.35.185 (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As a matter of fact, it's more than just a draft - it's a deleted one. Use the sandbox for test edits. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:46, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 37.201.193.229

[edit]

I need some help on improving the article. Could someone please give me more details on where references are missing, poor or unreliable? Is it problematic if an encyclopedia entry for a software program describes the detailed functions? Shouldn't that be a core task of the entry? I really appreciate your help. 37.201.193.229 (talk) 13:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To start with your last question, a 'core task' of a Wikipedia article is indeed to describe the essential features of its subject, as well as (importantly) what makes it noteworthy. Listing product features, technical details, etc. is not appropriate, those are best left for (in this case) the software's own documentation and marketing literature.
I don't know what exactly the last reviewer had in mind ( Courtesy ping: AlphaBetaGamma?), but I note that one of the sources is an undergraduate-level dissertation or similar, which is not acceptable. Also, five of the 14 citations are to the company's own website(s), which is effectively the subject telling the world about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer and the detailed description. These are some objections that I really understand. I will try to improve it. 37.201.193.229 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 4 October 2024 review of submission by MJGTMKME123

[edit]

I don't know which information to include in the infobox. MJGTMKME123 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MJGTMKME123: populate those fields for which you have reliably-sourced data, skip the rest. In any case, infoboxes, images, and other such bells & whistles are purely optional, and aren't needed for the review process which mainly considers notability and verifiability.
You need to attend to the referencing, though, as it's currently throwing multiple errors. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok MJGTMKME123 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:23, 4 October 2024 review of submission by EBKSace

[edit]

I need help moving a article to main space EBKSace (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content? Theroadislong (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Alexbrown5566

[edit]

Dead links have been removed. How to improve further? Alexbrown5566 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexbrown5566 Back office officials have to be very special to pass our criteria. I have my doubts that he does. Your job is to prove that he does. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Shadowkiller222

[edit]

like to know why i can not upload it because its has nothing about the person without his consent Shadowkiller222 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. An article subject does not need to consent to information about them being on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if the subject did consent, that raises questions about your connexion to him and whether or not you should be required to disclose that connexion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 43.241.67.185

[edit]

Why my article was disappointed may I know the reason I wrote my daily routine only Please crose check once and update it. 43.241.67.185 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It has articles about notable topics. It is not a platform for publishing CVs or personal profiles. --bonadea contributions talk 20:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:25, 4 October 2024 review of submission by DashaHouston401

[edit]

I am trying to write an article about a small businessman and im not understanding why it keeps being deleted, I've tried for days to figure it out. DashaHouston401 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, so I can't see the deleted draft. But I can read the messages on your user talk page, which say that it read like unambiguous advertising.
Please note that 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 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. 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.
Writing a Wikipedia article begins with finding sources such as that - wholly independent of the subject, and published in reliable places (see WP:42 for more detail).
If at least three such sources can be found, then it is worth creating a draft, in which you summarise what those independent sources say about the subject, not what the subject wants to say about themselves.
Does that make it clearer? ColinFine (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DashaHouston401, your draft was an utterly promotional biography written in the style of a hagiography, violating the core content policy, the Neutral point of view. Vast swathes were unreferenced, violating Verifiability, another core content policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 4 October 2024 review of submission by MisaHinasaki

[edit]

need help with sources, as there are practically none for Schoolgirl Supervisor MisaHinasaki (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't provide sources for you. If you can't locate appropriate sources, the topic would not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:24, 4 October 2024 review of submission by 98.15.215.82

[edit]

Not useful draft 98.15.215.82 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article about Adolf Hitler. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Korrikabbab

[edit]

So for my refrence im using a roblox url but its black listed and i really need it because its my only refrence i have Korrikabbab (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then your game does not merit a Wikipedia article. That's why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. You might want to try something like a Fandom wiki about game mods or Roblox in particular. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


refrence help Korrikabbab (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i did not mean to do this ignore please. Korrikabbab (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:44, 4 October 2024 review of submission by Korrikabbab

[edit]

Wont let me publish it again whenever it said submisson rejected after i added my refrences Korrikabbab (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected and cannot be submitted again. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Star Mississippi 02:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 5

[edit]

06:34, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Faridgurbanov3

[edit]

Why my article is rejected ? Faridgurbanov3 (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer left you the reason for rejection at the top of the draft, "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." 331dot (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Vaclav Pinos

[edit]

I can't seem to publish my article for some unknown reason. Vaclav Pinos (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is given on your user talk page. I cannot see the deleted sandbox, so I don't know what was in it; but I'm guessing that you should read what Wikipedia is not. If you have further questions, you'd best ask the editors who rejected and deleted your sandbox. (I know somebody advised you on your user talk page to ask here, but now that your sandbox has been deleted, there is no information available for editors such as me to give you any more precise answers). ColinFine (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was a piece of fiction, plain and simple. (A fictional emperor who lived 1500 years BC, and whose motto was "peace, love, and skate". In English. If I remember correctly, the emperor of China and the king of Spain attended his funeral.) --bonadea contributions talk 19:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Vaclav Pinos

[edit]

Could you please let me publish my article,I have spent a lot of time researching Vaclav Pinos (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. And be advised that you can't use Wikipedia articles to source other Wikipedia articles, per WP:CIRCULAR. This isn't a place to write fiction. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Bzbustamante

[edit]

Hi, I have modified list of exhibitions as suggested by editors and added online references about the artist from Google books and other sources. Its been 3 months since the last time the article was reviewed. Can somebody check again? Thanks, Beatriz Bzbustamante (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is pending review. As noted on the draft, "This may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,317 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:00, 5 October 2024 review of submission by 41.114.159.209

[edit]

How to publish my page again? 41.114.159.209 (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has now been rejected twice. Please stop wasting your own and other people's time in trying to get this clearly not-notable topic into Wikipedia.
Once the album has been released, then if you can point to multiple places where people wholly unconnected with Garden have chosen to write at length about the album, and been published in reliable sources, then it will be possible for an article to be written for Wikipedia. That is obviously extremely unlikely to happen before the album is released. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Princemke

[edit]

why is my article not notable for wikipedia Princemke (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in its present form is totally unsuitable for Wikipedia, because it is unsourced. Wikipedia does not care what you (or I, or any random person on the internet) know or think about a subject even if you are the creator of the subject. Wikipedia is almost only interested in what has been independently published about a subject.
If @KylieTastic has rejected your draft, you may take it that they have looked for suitable sources and not found any, and concluded that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also as you said it was just created October 1, 2024. Wikipedia is not for promoting new things. KylieTastic (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:33, 5 October 2024 review of submission by 2001:2042:39B9:F300:98BF:46D6:AC92:3387

[edit]

I don’t understand what can be done to fix the draft better. 

2001:2042:39B9:F300:98BF:46D6:AC92:3387 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:47, 5 October 2024 review of submission by Zhuvelo

[edit]

Hi! I've tried to submit a page for creation, but it's been rejected by two people saying that it doesn't meet the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSICBIO requirements. I can prove that it does, but there is no way to communicate this to the draft reviewers besides posting it on their talk pages after they have already rejected the submission. Is there a way to submit an article for creation and have a two-way communication with the reviewer before they accept or deny it? Zhuvelo (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to show in the draft how the topic meets the notability criteria, it shouldn't require a two way conversation with anyone. We need sources that show it for verifiability, as you can't have two way conversations with everyone who reads the article.
If you want to discuss something about the draft, you may do so here. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Looking at Draft:Roger Bright, in what ways does it appear to you to not meet the notability requirements? Just for some context, here's what I typed up for one of the reviewers about the notability requirements that it meets:
  1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself [he has full page articles about himself from the International Polka Association, the Cleveland-Style Polka Hall of Fame, and the Racine Journal Times, among others]
  2. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable) [has released 35 records on Cuca Records, an important independent record label]
  3. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles [He has performed in ensembles with Joey Miskulin, Frankie Yankovic, and Slavko Avsenik, all of whom are independently notable musicians]
  4. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city [the most prominent representative of both the city of New Glarus and of polka music in New Glarus]
  5. Has won first, second, or third place in a major music competition [Not strictly a competition, but I believe being inducted into 3 different Polka Hall of Fames counts as "winning" those competitions]
  6. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album [has performed on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, the Phil Donahue Show, and the Charlotte Peters Show, among others]
Zhuvelo (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he has 35 albums, that might work, but you still need independent reliable sources that give him significant coverage.
Are you saying he formed bands/ensembles with all those people?
New Glarus is a town of 2200ish people. I'm guessing it doesn't have a lot of polka music performers. If you has independent sources saying he was important to polka music in Wisconsin more broadly, maybe.
Being named to halls of fame is not a "music competition". Think American Idol, The Voice, etc.
Performing on a TV show is not what that refers to; that refers to performing the theme song of a show or other work. 331dot (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 5 October 2024 review of submission by 41.114.137.20

[edit]

How can I publish my article again? 41.114.137.20 (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. And please don't make a new thread for every question about the draft, just edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please stop creating drafts and other pages about Bayley Garden and his future releases. We've had Draft:Bayley Garden, Draft:Countrey Classic, a sandbox and an article at Bayley's Garden. Wikipedia has articles about topics that have already been written about in independent secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 21:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 5 October 2024 review of submission by LeopoldFriedrich

[edit]

I tried to submit this article. On the first submission I was told to include more secondary sources instead of primary. So I did add more secondary sources in part replacing primary ones. The sources have programming in AL at heart and I don't understand the second rejection as no reason was given, I could further act upon. Instead the first reason was reapplied. Should I really add more sources, when is it enough sources? It isn't like there aren't more for example I could also include https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxmutcQcEh0, and https://alguidelines.dev/docs/bestpractices/ coming in part from the same person or https://yzhums.com/30559/ a blog describing and linking sources to a specific topic about the AL programming language, but I'm unsure about them, because it isn't about the topic at large or something that would necessarily fit the article. LeopoldFriedrich (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 6

[edit]

06:18, 6 October 2024 review of submission by 130.76.25.234

[edit]

The author of this article about me (Nels Andrew Olson) is a colleague here in Seattle (Jon Crump). He, with the help of several other people extracted information from my long career as a chemist and put together this Wikipedia Article. It is factually correct and supported by my employment records, publications, seminars and talks I have given, the programs I have managed in academia, industry and the government. The authors have tried to suffice the requirements for the Wikipedia Article, following all of the guidance given. And yet, they have not been successful. Can you please give specific instructions on what exactly they have done wrong? The canned responses from reviewers are not helpful. Repeating guidance items that do not apply to the article's content are not helpful. Please be specific as to what the issues are so that my colleagues can finish their work authoring this account of my work and add to it as I move into by next appointment. 130.76.25.234 (talk) 06:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your colleagues should be disclosing their conflict of interest. You also say "colleagues" but the draft has been largely edited by a single editor. Accounts are strictly single person use only.
Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about the existence of someone and their work and activities. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikiepdia definition off a notable person. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just mentioning the person or their activities and goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about the person- not what they or their associates see as important about them. 331dot (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:42, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Thanosb94

[edit]

I am requesting assistance to make clear how to proceed in a number of issues where I find myself kind of stuck.

1) To prove that the CV of dr. Armaos is legitimate I reference to big advertising magazines of Greece, where moves of his are being referenced. Is that a mistake?

2) I had trouble in confirming many things of dr. Armaos' CV that I knew them to be true. The reason was, that it was not easy to find links online from his early career, because that was in the 2000s and Greece was kind of behind schedule on its digital process. To compensate for that I did the following:

a. I referenced a basic text describing his history from iarmaos.gr and the greek version of huffpost. I get that iarmaos cannot be considered a reliable source but isn't huffpost a reliable one? Should I do something additional? b. I referenced to PDF files of interviews of dr. Armaos in greek magazines or newspapers to showcase that his CV is legitimate. Since I found it difficult to upload PDF files, I requested them to be uploaded in iarmaos.gr. I had already proceeded to note that there would be a conflict in my article. What can I do to prove those facts in a way that is reliable? Should I stop using iarmaos or any dr. Armaos’ media entirely? Should I upload them as PDF files? Do you have some propositions as to what should I do to prove things that I know are legitimate but cannot find anything online, because it was during time where not everything was digitized and some companies may have changed since then?

3) To showcase that he has also made several appearances as a Political Analyst and Communication Consultant on TV and Radio, I referenced links of youtube channels of major Greek media with videos of his. I also referenced again to iarmaos.gr, where one may find all these videos in one place. Should I remove iarmaos completely, even though the videos of his appearances on these media are legitimate? Should I use another way to showcase his appearance on social media that is not a youtube channel?

4) To prove that KEPRONIPO is legitimate, referenced his own CV on iarmaos and a pdf of an article of his uploaded through iarmaos.gr. Since there are not active digital links of the activity of the organization, what could I do to prove its activity?

Thank you in advance for your time. 

Thanosb94 (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:05, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Macrobreed2

[edit]

I have very recently submitted this draft for AFC review and am currently awaiting review. I am a little confused on the citation part for this specific Discography section. Do I need to cite each song or album individually? Or some would work. Additionally, there are 1-2 sources which I believe aren't much reliable as per WP:RS, still can I use them as primary sources to keep information? Best, Macrobreed2 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Fomoriii

[edit]

heeey I've just made this page in the middle of a wikiathon :) it'd be great to jump the queue so we can keep up the good work! this is my first article so happy to take any feedback <3 Fomoriii (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fomoriii Yeah, and 1,300 or so should wait for you?. Unlikely. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no need for the attitude love, im in a wikiathon and was encouraged to take a punt Fomoriii (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no means of speeding the review process, which is entirely conducted by volunteers. If we allow you to "jump the line" then we have to allow everyone to. If you are part of an event, perhaps a more experienced user can help you place the draft in the encyclopedia- if you want to roll the dice that it would survive an deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 6 October 2024 review of submission by Shilohwebster

[edit]

What counts as a reliable source? Or, better questions, what are some examples of a good reliable source? I looked at the page and I couldn't quite understand and theres no examples to get a good idea. It says at the top of the page, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shilohwebster (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:13, 6 October 2024 review of submission by TSventon

[edit]

This rejected draft is a duplicate of Ayşe Zarakol, started 8 September 2024‎. Should the draft be published and redirected to the existing article? TSventon (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1249773087"