Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


June 30[edit]

01:27, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Deven Reddy10[edit]

I created a wiki page for an Indian National highway called "National Highway 930P". But I named the page as Dev Reddy instead of "National Highway 930P". I think publishing of the page got rejected due to that error. Now I want to republish the same page by changing the title name as ""National Highway 930P" instead of "Dev Reddy" could someone help me on this ? Thank you Deven Reddy10 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deven Reddy10. The current title of a draft has no impact on its review. AFC reviewers know how to give an accepted article its proper title. Draft:Dev Reddy has not been rejected. It has been declined instead, which is a very different thing. So, forget about the current name of the draft and instead focus on improving the draft as recommended by the reviewers. Pay close attention to their comments. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:35, 30 June 2024 review of submission by WikiPhil012[edit]

I cannot resubmit my draft. 

WikiPhil012 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WikiPhil012. Your draft has been resubmitted but is unlikely to be accepted. It is very poorly referenced and needs major improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. WikiPhil012 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:09, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Quote Veteran[edit]

It says to be qualified there needs to be multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent, though my submission was denied. But the reviewer said The Hill and NYT, which is multiple, so I'm confused. Quote Veteran (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quote Veteran: we normally require three such sources; hence why the reviewer said this is "close to showing notability". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I have added another profile from Delaware Today. There was also a well-done profile from the Post. It says you are a new page reviewer, would you mind reviewing it? Thanks in advance. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran: looks like another reviewer got there first, while I was catching some ZZZs. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, thanks for the help. Will make sure to add all the sources I can next time. Quote Veteran (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Jasonkumarlopchan[edit]

Hello, I have posted all the reference articles that covered the news about our film. But my submission is being denied. Please help ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonkumarlopchan: there isn't much we can do to help. If you don't have evidence that the film is notable, then this draft cannot be accepted.
You have been asked twice already to disclose your conflict of interest. Please do so as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of evidence are we talking about ? Could you help me please ? I have already listed out media articles related to the movie as well as the IMDB page of the movie. Help please ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: the kind of evidence which is described in the decline notice, that has now been posted three times on top of the draft. Have you read any of it? We're looking for something to show that the film satisfies either the WP:NFILM or WP:GNG guidelines. Your draft cites precisely three sources: IMDB, which is completely useless, and two pre-release publicity pieces; none of these contribute anything towards notability.
And one more time: please disclose your conflict of interest now, I'd rather not have to ask again. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh Okay. I'm a media journalist here in Nepal and I came upon a screening of this movie and I quite loved it. The movie was really grounded as one can tell they're a massive independent makers. The movie is also the first ever Nepali movie to be shot entirely on Iphone. So, its kind of an achievement for our Nepali Cinema landscape. My only interest is to provide information about this movie to the people out there and help it reach world wide audiences as well. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: are you trying to say you have no connection to this film? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. But I'm doing this on my own. Not under their influence or for some financial gain. I'm just doing it for the love of movies and to expand the landscape of our Nepali cinema. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: "I do" what – you do have a connection to this film? Like, might you be the Jason Lopchan that the draft says wrote, directed and edited this film? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've tried wikipedia. I opened this account and tried to write out about the movie just to help out the team and the movie. I told you I'm a local media journalist in Nepal. You might think I'm doing it financial gain but no it's simply just as I told you above. These guys are new in the film making line of Nepal. I just want to help them grow. I provided you with information regarding media articles, I know you said they are pre release publicity pieces but the movie hasn't releases so what am I supposed to provide you ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: I still don't know what your relationship with this subject is. Maybe someone else can better interpret your evasive comments and get to the bottom of this.
If you don't have evidence that the film is notable, then it's probably not notable. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are film-makers and I'm a media personnel. That's the relationship. And I have been asking you the same question, what evidence should I provide you ? Can you be specific ? cause it looks like to me that you want it to be not notable. Everyone here in Nepal knows about the movie and I'm only trying to get in on wiki hoping people outside notice as well. What exact evidence should I provide about a movie that hasn't been released yet ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: "Hasn't been released yet" is the start and end of your problems. Unless there's something wildly unusual about the production (i.e. deaths or legal issues) it's highly unlikely a film that hasn't been released yet gets an article simply because the sources that would be available are all the usual personnel and marketeering crap that every movie and their set dog gets. You're better off waiting until the film releases and gets professional reviews; we can cite those to build an article. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator by design, and our readers both understand this and get torqued off when an article seems to be trying to advertize to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Thank you for your explanation. This is the explanation I was hoping to get from @DoubleGrazing. I have already gone through the guidelines but I was having trouble which is why I came to help desk. I was hoping to get it clear instead of referring me to the notability guidelines link. Anyways, hope you do better job at helping others than you did to me. Be clear and help others instead of trying to sound cocky. Thank you @Jéské Couriano again for your reply and helping out. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasonkumarlopchan It's hard to judge tone from text on a screen. Trying to sound clear and consise is easy to confuse with cockiness. Please assume people are trying to help you. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your experience is very common for new editors of Wikipedia who attempt the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning the necessary skills. Writing for an encyclopaedia is very different from journalism.
I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent a few weeks or months improving existing articles, and learning about how Wikipedia works. Once they have an understanding of fundamental concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, independent sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article carefully, and try creating an article. If they try before that, they are likely to have the same frustrating experience as you are having. ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: I have already explained that you need to show evidence that the film meets either of the relevant notability guidelines, WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Consistently throughout this process these have been pointed out to you, and yet you're still here asking what sort of evidence is needed. You will need to read and understand these guidelines yourself, I cannot understand them for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: See WP:Upcoming films for advice.Surprised that shortcut didn't exist till now! Once it gets released next month and professional reviews come in, we shall reconsider. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 30 June 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:2540:B700:B9AD:9FE8:29D7:50EA[edit]

Hi there, my draft was denied in March. I have corrected the external links but it hasn't been reviewed. Help please 2600:1700:2540:B700:B9AD:9FE8:29D7:50EA (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have significant portions of uncited text. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined with rationale. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of the exhibitions of this artist do not have an online source that can be cited because they took place when there very little or none online presence. I removed the ones that I couldn't cite however there are many more that I could cite with reliable sources. Please reconsider. 2600:1700:2540:B700:F594:3704:3F9B:D72E (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We accept offline sources, if cited with enough information to look them up in a library or offline archive.
  • For magazines or newspapers we use {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}} and require the outlet name, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1924), the article title, the article byline, and the page(s) the article is on;
  • For books we use {{cite book}} and require the title, author, year of publication, publisher, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at this huge list of exhibitions. Does it add value to the artist's notability or is it just a large list. Generally we select the most significant, where the reference is about the artist. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we have a strong preference for independent sources. If the only published material you can find about a particular exhibition comes from the artist, or the gallery, so no independent commentator has noted it, then Wikipedia is probably not interested in that exhibition either. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in a newspaper article for draft for the tv show Crying Down the Lane Matthew John Drummond (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Tscharschmidt[edit]

I would be grateful for help addressing the question of adequate references. It would be helpful to have specific examples of the deficiencies. For the revised March 2024 version, I added references documenting Granoff’s contributions from primary, secondary and tertiary sources, including textbooks, peer-reviewed scientific articles and review articles in scientific journals; also PDF downloaded from websites of International organizations such as the American Society of Microbiology and Medical Schools. Thanks very much Tscharschmidt (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tscharschmidt I view the subject's notability as proven. I am about to accept this draft. Improvements may be made later. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tscharschmidt Accepted. Please try to allow the community to edit this to its hearts content. We father articles, we do not mother them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Elise9876[edit]

Hi Help Desk! Hope you are well. I am working on a Wikipedia entry on the late activist, organizer, and editor Joan Gibbs. Gibbs received obituaries in New York's Amsterdam News and Gay City News and the national publications Gay USA and thebody.com, an HIV/AIDS publication. Her work has been documented by several academics. I would be grateful for any advice about what additional kind of articles or coverage would prove notability. Thanks! Best, Elise Harris Elise9876 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elise9876 put simply:
For a living or recently deceased person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Your objective may surprise you. It is simply to show that Gibbs passes WP:BIO for acceptance. Embellishments may come later 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will work on locating more secondary sources that are recognized by Wikipedia. Elise9876 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Quote Veteran[edit]

I'm here again sorry because I don't get why this was declined. DoubleGrazing said three good sources are usually necessary for approval, and yet this article with multiple sources on a well-known historical foundation was rejected. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quote Veteran I would like to hear from @SafariScribe who declined it, since I view it as a potentially valid stub article. I don't want to jump I and accept it because I value their opinion. As reviewers we are entitled to have different opinions; we are human, after all. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well another person noted that an independent source was needed for a claim, so I've added two sources for that. NYT is surely go-to. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran I suggest you resubmit it since you have added material 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so, shall I resubmit my article on the BB Foundation? Quote Veteran (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran Accepted. I have no comment to make on the BB Foundation, save that you should use mature judgement. I have not examined it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Timtrent. I was about doing that but found out it has been moved. @Quote Veteran, thanks for your contributions too. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe I didn't wish to pre-empt you, but the additions were compelling. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's not a problem. Once more, I appreciate the help. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 30 June 2024 review of submission by 2605:59C8:302E:4910:81CE:1536:5AC6:28C7[edit]

How can I find better sources for this? 2605:59C8:302E:4910:81CE:1536:5AC6:28C7 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By research. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 1[edit]

00:10, 1 July 2024 review of submission by HisotricalHoundofHistory[edit]

The sources I did were completely wrong, No AI generation; just I have no clue how to use this site, I don't think. This is a pretty niche part of history and I can point you into the direction of the correct sources that are reliable and credible. Just need help, thank you. HisotricalHoundofHistory (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HisotricalHoundofHistory: If the sources were wrong, where did you get the information from? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article here Turicum, you can edit that, with reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most new editors have no clue how to use this site. Those who, being new editors and having no clue, plunge straight into the very challenging task of creating a new article, very often have a frustrating time. My advice is always to not even think of creating a new article before spending several weeks or months improving articles and gradually learning how Wikipedia works. When they have an understanding of core concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article carefully and try creating an article. ColinFine (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Jeremias2545[edit]

Hello, in my article I have included a couple of references of which the first two are not considered independent and therefore do not contribute to the notability. My question is: Should I delete these references and leave only the correct one? Since they are the only references I have. Thank you. Jeremias2545 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremias2545: sources can do two things, they can establish notability, and/or they can verify information in the article. Even if a source doesn't contribute towards the former, it can still be needed for the latter. So only remove a source if it does neither (in which case, it shouldn't really be there in the first place).
In this draft, all three sources are there just to support the statements that this person has appeared in the media. I struggle somewhat to see the point of such statements, and therefore the usefulness of these sources, at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entiendo, mi idea de incluirlas era precisamente respladar y verificar la informacion del articulo. Para dejarlo claro, recomiendas eliminar las 3? Jeremias2545 (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeremias2545: let's keep this in English, given that we're on the English-language Wikipedia.
I'm saying that these sources only support content that isn't particularly relevant. In other words, if you remove that content, and these sources along with it, the draft will be none the worse for it.
Your main task is to show that this person is notable per WP:GNG. You do that by finding a few sources that meet this GNG standard, summarise what they say (and forget what she wants you to write), and cite those sources agains the information they have provided. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Fatima Mukarrama[edit]

I want to know that what are errors found in my article and how can it be eridicated in order to get published?? Fatima Mukarrama (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fatima Mukarrama: we don't know where this information is coming from. You list some possible sources at the end and call them 'references', but they're not referred to anywhere. Please see WP:REFB for advice on the preferred referencing method of inline citations and footnotes. Also, use the {{cite news}} and/or {{cite web}} templates, to ensure that the results are correctly formatted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 1 July 2024 review of submission by GJamesT[edit]

I wrote a Wikipedia post about Savic Motorcycles which is about to launch in Australia but it was rejected in a few minutes saying it is not notable enough. What do I do now as I think it is definitely interesting. 

GJamesT (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GJamesT: It was rejected because it's written as an investor-fishing piece and 60% of its sources are Wikipedia articles. (If you're trying to link to another Wikipedia page, [[square brackets]] will do that.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 1 July 2024 review of submission by BarbaraS97[edit]

Hello, my translation for an article originally in Croatian was denied twice. I followed the rules that state my sources need to be objective and not associated with the subject, but the article was still denied. I was wondering if I could get a more detailed explanation as to why my sources don't meet the criteria? If you could pinpoint me to the sources that cause the article to not be approved? Thank you, Barbara BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BarbaraS97 Please understand that each language Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one is not necessarily acceptable on another. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others.
The main claim to notability you seem to be making is that he's been given some recognition/awards. However, awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Tony Award or Academy Award). Leaving that stuff aside, the draft only tells about his activities- this does not establish that he meets the definition of a notable person. You must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage, sources that go into detail about what makes this man important/significant/influential as a person as they see it. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for you reply. The issue here is that as a founder of one of the biggest FMCG companies in the Balkan region, he has made a significant impact on the economy of the region but is a relatively private person and therefore the coverage is simply not there. At least not to the extent that it is with other businessmen who, unlike him, have had very public scandals and affairs. Do you think a shorter article with only the basics which are somewhat covered in Croatian media could be approved? Again, thank you for your help. BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources that discuss what they see as important about him, there can't be an article about him on this Wikipedia. Whether he is a private person or not isn't relevant to this. What matters is what others unaffiliated with him write about him, and not based on materials associated with him(like interviews, company press releases, etc.) Just basic information isn't sufficient, this is not a directory of people, but an encyclopedia.
If this article is acceptable on the Croatian Wikipedia, I suggest that you focus your efforts there. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the premier Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with this individual? 331dot (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, I work at his company. BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarbaraS97: in that case, you must make a paid-editing disclosure as soon as possible; I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this apply even if editing is just on my own accord and not a part of my job description? BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It does not require specific payment or instructions to edit. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BarbaraS97: yes, you're writing about your employer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thank you both for the information. @331dot@DoubleGrazing BarbaraS97 (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 1 July 2024 review of submission by LouisCSV[edit]

Need help or support in getting this article approved, lots of sources provided! LouisCSV (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisCSV: you have resubmitted this draft and it is awaiting another review, please be patient.
Indeed, lots of sources, but I didn't immediately see anything that would establish notability. That said, I didn't analyse them in detail. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, @DoubleGrazing The notability in this article is that the Plymouth Chronicle is Plymouth's largest newspaper by distribution, a print newspaper by it's own is fairly notable nowadays, thanks for the prompt on this as I will try to cite from the newspaper printers LouisCSV (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisCSV: just to make sure we're both on the same page regarding notability, being the 'largest' or 'oldest' or 'first of its kind' etc. may make a subject 'famous' or 'important' or 'popular' or something like that, but notability has a very specific definition in the Wikipedia context, and none of those attributes come into it at all; it is solely a question of whether independent and reliable secondary sources have provided significant coverage of the subject. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight on this, much appreciated. LouisCSV (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LouisCSV What is the general nature of your conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot I am employed at Cornerstone Vision which publishes the Plymouth Chronicle Newspaper. As a notable newspaper print publication I am trying to get listed alongside similar papers such as The Herald (Plymouth) and Western Morning News. LouisCSV (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisCSV As an employee of the publisher you need to read WP:PAID in detail. Your COI declaration needs to migrate to a declaration of paid editing, please.
I appreciate you have been as transparent as you have been able to with the information available to you. Please go the extra mile. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for highlighting this, I have adjusted my user page to comply with this. Many thanks and kind regards. LouisCSV (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Just FYI you can remove the COI notice in favor of the paid notice. The paid notice covers both. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 1 July 2024 review of submission by MsSalsaFish[edit]

I am not associated with Promise Neighborhoods of the Lehigh Valley yet was declined by a reviewer for not being "formal" or having a neutral tone. Please provide assistance. MsSalsaFish (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MsSalsaFish The connection or otherwise with the topic is not relevant to the reviewer's decline of the draft. It is not written as an article for Wikipedia. It is written as a magazine article, and as a PR piece, and remains so even after your recent edits.
In an edit summary you said 'The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party'. Please define what you mean with precision. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish no Declined for reasons given on the draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for assistance with this page. I am reporting on the Promise Neighborhood organization per observation and research. It is not intended to be a press release or article, rather to introduce readers to the organization. I. have worked more this morning to write with a Wiki mindset and would appreciate feedback. MsSalsaFish (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish That isn't really what this Helpdesk is for. We offer advice, but generally do not leap in and edit, unless, by serendipity, the subject matter interests one of us. You need to work thinking "If it's to be, it's up to me!" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware 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.
You need to start by finding several places where people wholly unconnected twit hte organisation have chosen, unprompted, to write at some length about the organisation, and been published in reliable places.
If you cannot find at least three such pieces, then give up, as the organisation does not currently meed Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
If you can find them, the next step is to forget everything you know about the organisation, and especially forget everything that you want the world to know about it, and write a summary of what those independent sources say. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MsSalsaFish I remain concerned by 'The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party', something you have not commented on. Are you writing this professionally, for reward? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement "The article is professional and neutral and written by a third party" was in response to the initial question of neutrality. Perhaps poorly worded, it was my way of saying that I am a Wiki contributor. I am very new to this process and am attempting to learn the nuances of the Wiki world. It has a very steep learning curve. MsSalsaFish (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically in this context "third party" would mean someone other than yourself or us. That's why we're a little confused.
It is true that writing a new article for Wikipedia has a steep learning curve, it is the most difficult task to perform here. It is usually recommended that new users first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest them(with almost 7 million to choose from) so that they learn how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Diving right in to creating articles is akin to knocking on the door of Carnegie Hall and asking to give a violin recital without ever having played the violin before. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:27, 1 July 2024 review of submission by OskuDev[edit]

I have all of the information that exists about Screri Gaem because I made it. I can not think of anything else to put in the page. OskuDev (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it is time for you to move on to other things. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OskuDev: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic fails WP:NVG and WP:COI; page creator blocked as promo account. (But hey, at least Google brought up an EverybodyWiki link for that!Domain is WP-blacklisted, however.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OskuDev: Wikipedia and its readers have zero tolerance for advertizing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Rajibarber[edit]

Greetings There!

I'm relatively new here and have been learning all through before joining here as an editor.

I finished creating an article with the forestated about four days ago and pushed it for AFC review, it was however rejected the following day. A number of reasons were alluded to the rejection.

I have noted all the points raised by the reviewer and planning to incorporate all his suggestions.

My prayer is that, can anyone here please help me make a review of the drafted article and check whether there are some other wrongs with the draft?

Thanks. 

Rajibarber (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: that's a curious expression, "have been learning all through before joining here as an editor", what did you mean by that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean before even creating an account here, I have been studying the how to; perhaps I have not studied enough and I am sure ready to learn till death.
Thanks Dear @DoubleGrazing Rajibarber (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: have you edited under other accounts before registering this one? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No at all sir Rajibarber (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I have been keenly following and observing how things are done here, without any attempt to edit anything. Rajibarber (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajibarber: Let's have a look at your sources (refer to my /Decode subpage, linked as "critiques" in my signature). For the avoidance of doubt I will also assess your external links as if they were sources:
You have nothing that's significant coverage of her. Two sources name her as winning an award, but that's all they do, which leaves you otherwise with nothing to base an article off of. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am blown off Dear erudite @Jéské Couriano.
That's why I mentioned that I am here to learn, sincerely, most of the issues you raised were new to me, but are all noted now.
I can't thank you enough.
Gratias
Regards Rajibarber (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Viwong731[edit]

Hi. I'm creating a page for the first time and I'm unsure how to properly reference and cite. I was hoping to get assistance doing so if possible. Thank you. Viwong731 (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viwong731: you have created several citations more or less correctly, there just aren't enough of them, as most of the content remains unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I'll add more. Thanks! Viwong731 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For every piece of information in your draft, ask yourself, "Where did I get that information from?". If it was a reliable published source, wholly independent of Lillis, cite the source. If it was a reliable published source connected with Lillis, consider whether it was the kind of information allowed by SPS, and if so, cite the source. In any other case, remove the information.
(Note that finding sources before writing any text often avoids wasted effort. See BACKWARDS). ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Nanou41[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to receive feedback on the specific source links I have added to the article. I have produced a source assess table to assist with trying to figure it out: (Malformed source assessment tables deleted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques)Nanou41 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the malformed templates (as they were impossible to read and a massive wall o' text) and will assess your sources directly. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

Most of your sources are useless, thus the chaff is choking the wheat. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2[edit]

07:34, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Nurebz001[edit]

We faced issues with two paid editors due to lack of awareness of all policies. Our first editor's work got drafted when it was discovered he was paid. The second editor faced the same issue when GSS assumed it was the same person. Although we fired the first editor and hired a second person. Now, we have submitted our own page, but GSS drafted it again. We are trying to comply with all policies and have disclosed our COI. I believe GSS is being unreasonable, and may be thinking that I am one of the previous editors. I am a direct employee of RSP Architects and can verify my identity with a company email. Can someone help resolve this situation? The page was live for a month without issues. All I am asking is to submit the page to AFC. Here is the page link Draft:RSP Architects Planners & Engineers Nurebz001 (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like it was written by the marketing department to promote every thing the company has ever done, that is not how articles are written here. Theroadislong (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... I'm confused. If I understand this correctly, you, as an employee of the company you're writing about, paid 2 editors, both of whom are blocked now, to promote your company, before you fired both of them and decided to do it yourself? Wikipedia is not for companies to tell the world about themselves, and the draft will almost certainly be declined again if resubmitted. Regardless, you need to disclose your paid editing status now by following the directions on the message I left on your talk page, or you may be blocked like the 2 other editors. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:35, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Turini2[edit]

I've posted three times on the talk page of the draft article that it is too soon for the article, and that fundamental errors and mistakes remain in their draft. Another editor (Joeyconnick) reverted previous edits for being unsourced. The editor continues to submit for AFC regardless! Can someone decline this draft, and encourage some concrete steps on how the editor can improve (i.e. talk to people rather than ignoring talk page comments!)? Turini2 (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Turini2: not sure what good declining will do, if the author (and it probably is the author, editing as IPs after they were blocked – maybe that's something that could be looked into?) is insistent; they can just resubmit again. Only a rejection would put an end to that, but I'm not sure that's justified. That said, I'm happy to decline this on the basis of notability, if you think that would help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so - maybe directing them to the talk page, or seeking a mentor? Turini2 (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Arahi991[edit]

Dear Moderator Put in more official sources I will add what I need Check the article and can publish Arahi991 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: for the third time (in the space of a week), this draft has been rejected, and won't therefore be considered further. If you wish to appeal the rejection, you must make your case directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have appealed to me but the company still does not meet notability so the rejection stands. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Arahi991 we have little interest in 'official sources', as they do not establish notability nor are considered reliable and independent. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. In addition, to reiterate, do you have any connection with Solyankich (talk · contribs)? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arahi991: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Absolutely none of your sources are any good, with the vast majority of them being sources we couldn't cite under any circumstance. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Np 7 13[edit]

Hello, I would like to please ask for more assistance on the reasoning behind the rejection on. I thought the citations were legitimate and reliable news resources and their format was auto-created by Wikipedia. I wish to improve this article therefore any additional more specific feedback would be much appreciated. Thank you very much! Np 7 13 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Np 7 13! It looks as if your first step is to disclose your conflict of interest| in relation to this topic – as far as I can see, every edit you've made in the last six years has been to promote it in one way or another. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers I am sorry, I think this is a bit unfair. I have made a few other edits that are not related to specifically this topic. I have an interest in art, culture and non profits in Greece as it is something I am more familiar with but I started researching and I noticed a gap about an issue and one edit led to another. I am new to this and have less than 100 edits which include other institutions in Greece as well so I might have fallen very deep and focused extensively into one topic maybe. I will try and research it more and amend the citations for a more accurate and reliable post. Thank you very much! Np 7 13 (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Np 7 13, my previous statement was not 100% accurate (my apologies!), but seems more than fair. I may have missed something, but as far as I can see every edit you've made is connected to the Neon topic with the exception of those relating to the Stavros Niarchos Foundation or to the John S. Latsis Public Benefit Foundation (and for all I know those are connected too). It looks very much as if you you should make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure in relation to both the Latsis foundation/family and to the Neon organisation. I'll leave a note on your talk-page on how to do that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 2 July 2024 review of submission by 212.139.32.254[edit]

hello. this from the donald team ahs been a problem. we have worked about. 5 days on this article. not for it to be deleted by a BOT POWERED BY AI. please accept. we need this for our work document . so accept it and the references might be fake. BUT that doesnt matter at all. it only matters if you Accept it.. FROM THE DONALD FOUNDATION 212.139.32.254 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, enough. I've issued you an only warning. Keep this up, and you can expect to be blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft is absolute garbage and there are no bots editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Troll blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

13:22, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Shmego[edit]

This article has over 21,000 bytes, 47 sources, and has enough information to be a notable and useful article. While only causing minimal damage, there is still enough information in it for it to become a standalone article. It is most likely only written as minimal damage as there is no monetary damage written down from St Vincent or St Lucia, so it is likely that there was a fair amount of damage, and the sources found in the article would agree with that. In conclusion, i believe that this article in notable, and with this much information, I'm not sure why it hasn't been published. Shmego (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One reviewer cited WP:DENY but I'm not sure why. This process is (usually) voluntary. If you feel that the reviewers got it wrong(have you asked them directly about it?) you are free to move it to they encyclopedia yourself, but then you run the risk of an WP:AFD discussion being started. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: From the looks of it this draft's been edited by an LTA in the past, so it might be that an admin familiar with that LTA's behaviour is leery of accepting a draft they've targeted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I have not asked them. Thanks for the help, I may try to move it to the mainspace. Shmego (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:44, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Frankincense Diala[edit]

@Frankincense Diala: you have resubmitted the draft, so you will be getting a review once a reviewer happens to pick it up. If you have specific questions in the meantime, you can ask them here, of course. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I considered reviewing it. Instead I flagged the picture on Commons as a copyright violation. That puts me right off reviewing a draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala I decided to swallow my distaste for drafts embellished by copyright pictures, and no Declined this draft, with a very full rationale. You have substantial work to do. Please go to it with a will. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay . I actually asked for help Frankincense Diala (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala Which you received. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I lost the submission button for review to my draft. Please how do I retrieve it? Frankincense Diala (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how I lost my submission button. Please how do I retrieve it? Frankincense Diala (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: you lost it, because you deleted all the earlier AfC templates (declines and comments). Please don't do that, they need to remain there until the draft is accepted (assuming it is). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored these now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you...but I am yet to see that it has been restored, as can't see it at the top of a draft I was already on before the mistake occured. Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I delete a draft? Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I can see now that it has been restored. Thank you very much Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: it's not at the top of the draft, it's at the bottom of the topmost decline notice in a draft. In this case that notice is long, which pushes the blue 'resubmit' button quite far down, but it is there.
You cannot delete a draft (or any other page), only admins can do that. However, assuming you're the only substantive contributor to a draft, you can request its deletion by placing the {{db-author}} template on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thank you Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please help me with the submission button on this draft please.https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Green_Growth_Africa Frankincense Diala (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frankincense Diala: you actually created that directly in the live encyclopaedia. I've moved it into the draft space, as it is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability. You can now find it (with the submit button) at Draft:Green Growth Africa. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is it unreferenced, it reads like something a C-Suite guy wrote to try and attract investors. If the "Internet Publications on Green Growth Africa" are intended to be sources, please read Help:Referencing for beginners. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much @DoubleGrazing you have been helpful. I saw your email on my draft still under improvement. Will do tye needed Frankincense Diala (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 2 July 2024 review of submission by WikiPhil012[edit]

What should I do if one of my independant sources is an pdf with no author? Should I just write the name of the university who made it? 

WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012: "an [sic] pdf with no author" is not a source that will contribute anything towards notability, so you might as well ignore that.
You should study the WP:GNG guideline, and find sources that meet it.
You also need to review WP:REFB about referencing in general.
And if you're citing offline sources, you need to provide full bibliographical details, see WP:OFFLINE for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks this helped a lot. WikiPhil012 (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiPhil012 no Declined If you can find no references there is a strong probability (0.99) that the topic has not yet achieved notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:40, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Zahidhasanshuhan1[edit]

article submission has been rejected Zahidhasanshuhan1 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zahidhasanshuhan1: that's correct, and also speedily deleted. If you're writing about yourself, don't – see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Bcarpenterr[edit]

What can i do to get my article published? Bcarpenterr (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bcarpenterr Dump YouTube and Discogs as references. They do not meet our criteria. Seek better references. Do not seek more, seek better.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Can't find references, proper ones? Then the subject is not yet ready for an article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:33, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Li-reg[edit]

Hello, I am writing here since I need help. I'm afraid there is a reviewer whom his actions seems not professional and I would love help with this. I am sure all can be read so i wont copy it but in cases like this, what can be done? Also, I must point out, I have expressed my wish to correct everything needed, I asked help and I am still willing&want but I do believe what this reviewer is doing is not okay and too personal. Thank you, Li-reg (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Li-reg Please do not make accusations about other editors. They say more about you than they do about anyone else. I see two reviews, neither of which is personal. This brief tirade of yours is likely to put other reviewers off reviewing lest they feel the sharp edge of your discontent. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Li-reg I have chosen to disregard the potential for your making further accusations. I have no Declined this draft with a full rationale. Wikipedia does not tolerate accusations. If you have something to complain about please use one of the formal complaint mechanisms. This is not the place to do it. Meanwhile, even when doing that, you are required to assume good faith. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Li-reg: If you think the reviewers are being "too personal" by offering you advice, then you're not going to like what I'm about to do. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of the sources I could assess are any good; none of them discuss Freidenberg beyond the surface level. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:55, 2 July 2024 review of submission by Lucas Pat[edit]

This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Do not submit the wrong question. Lucas Pat (talk) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas Pat Then do not submit it. Do you have a question? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 3[edit]

08:35, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Chanan12[edit]

I am seeking guidance to ensure that the draft article for Chanan Zevin meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and formatting standards before submission for review. Chanan12 (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanan12 why are you referring to yourself in third person? The draft is a promotional autobiography and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted User:Chanan12/sandbox, and will get an assessment when a reviewer picks it up.
Also noting here that Draft:Chanan Zevin was recently rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Never mind, that was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. And the draft has been put forward for speedy deletion.
Also, I've deleted your duplicate thread, you only need to ask your question once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:44, 3 July 2024 review of submission by RoobaG[edit]

I would like to create an article about Talent Quest for India which is actively engaged in social works. Can you please assist how can I improve this article? RoobaG (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoobaG: as per the decline notice, you need to demonstrate notability according to the WP:ORG guideline, and you need to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, supported by reliable and independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:49, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga[edit]

Hello,

I was kindly requesting for advice regarding the draft article Nicholas Omonuk. Clare Nassanga (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: you need to specify what advice you want. That said, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request for assistance on how i can identify the references that have notability about the subject. Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: please don't open a new thread with every comment, just add to your previous one. In any case, you're just repeating your earlier question. Did you not read my reply? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should i restart the whole process again since it has been rejected. What is the step forward. Clare Nassanga (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Clare Nassanga: no, rejection means the end of the road. If evidence of notability comes to light later which wasn't considered as part of these reviews, you may be able to appeal the rejection by approaching the rejecting reviewer directly, but that evidence does need to be substantially stronger than what is there now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:31, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Simon Tuliameni[edit]

What more can i do if my article is rejected? Simon Tuliameni (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Tuliameni: nothing, that's it, the end of the road. You may want to try one of the many blogging or social media platforms out there instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
add some refrence and reliable source to your article. Kunalmasson (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that Kunalmasson's reply is not very helpful. Since your draft has been rejected, not just declined, merely adding sources will not do. You would need to apply to the rejecting reviewer, explaining just what material you have found which will establish that your subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Kunalmasson[edit]

Subject: Request for Analysis and Improvement Suggestions for Wikipedia Draft on Shri Dharm Paul

Dear Wikipedia Help Team,

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Massson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.


Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson 

Kunalmasson (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kunalmasson: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, so it will be assessed when a reviewer comes along to take a look.
Sources don't have to be online, as long as they are of sufficient quality in terms of reliability etc. If citing offline sources, you need to provide complete bibliographical information so that the source can be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.
Sources also don't have to be in English, just so you're aware. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 3 July 2024 review of submission by DerekMuttley[edit]

Difficulty understanding the 'Notability Guideline' in reference to this draft page.

I'm returning to this draft, and hope to resolve any queries this time around. Help me to understand why there should be an entry for, say LJ Ross, a contemporary fiction writer, yet this page dealing with the eponymous 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' is being refused. The work is referenced from within Wikipedia, from pages referring to the different authors involved. Several existing pages all point to 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' as being the medium for their work. The publication remained in print for over a hundred (100 years) from 1834 to 1963, and was published by a number of organisations, including the publishing arm of Sir Walter Scott. It differs from the discussion of the originator, Wilson, in that it incorporated work by other authors, and includes material of verifiable veracity, disguised within the 'fictional' overall guideline.

My difficulty seems to be that by the time of the digital age, it was so pervasive that it was/is no longer talked about, though copies are to be found in public libraries and repositories across the UK.

I appreciate that some of the discussion could be on the page related to Wilson, but that would avoid, or duplicate, material on the other author's pages.


I mentioned a contemporary author above, the page is a list of her published work, and referenced to contemporary reviews. Does this cloud of puffery indicate 'notability?' A phenomenon commencing in 1834 predates there being such material that can form 'references' of this type. References to the recently published Autobiography, and recent republications have been given. The 'peak' of discussion about the publication I would guess to be in the late 1830's.

How do I square this circle to the satisfaction of the 'bot' reviewing the submission?

Thanks, 

DerekMuttley (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note there are no "bots" involved in reviews, we are ALL human beings. Theroadislong (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley: if you're calling me a 'bot', then I assume I shouldn't bother even trying to answer this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as above - So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things.
I've been involved in making 'real' automated responses since back in the last century, so I know how not intelligent the current fashion for planet eating algorithms are.
But then, if you were a bot, that's just the kind of thing you'd say.
Let's not go there. I'm merely a grasshopper, seeking for answers from the Masters.. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DerekMuttley: okay, well, I shall leave it for you to work out whether or not I am a bot, and will meanwhile try to explain why I declined this draft.
If I've interpreted the sources correctly, all but two of them are referencing the book itself, and the subject cannot obviously make itself notable. The other two sources, nos. 4 and 8, seem to reference other books, but of these, I can't find information on the former (I tried a few ways of searching for the ISBN, but they all returned errors), and whatever the latter is, it alone isn't enough to establish notability, especially as it appears to be somewhat close to the subject.
Notability for books is established either by sources that satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or by citing reliable evidence that show the book meeting one or more of the five criteria enumerated in the WP:BOOKCRIT section of the special WP:NBOOK guideline. (My hunch, FWIW, is that this latter guideline, NBOOK, is your better bet of the two, given what you say about the book being old, and all that.) But absent sufficient sources or other evidence to satisfying either guideline, I had no option but to decline the draft.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for LJ Ross: that article has 29 citations, many of which appear (on a quick look) to be both reliable sources and wholly independent of Ross. Also see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Kunalmasson[edit]

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Masson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson Kunalmasson (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunalmasson: you posted this same question not even 20 minutes ago. Please read my reply to that, rather than posting the same thing again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:24, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Regeneisen[edit]

Hello,

I have attempted to create a Wikipedia article twice, but unfortunately, it has been declined both times. This is my first experience with creating an article, and I am making every effort to comply with Wikipedia's standards.

Before I proceed with editing my article again, I would greatly appreciate any guidance or advice on how to improve it so that it meets the necessary criteria for acceptance.

Thank you in advance for your help. Regeneisen (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Regeneisen: that's because the draft cites only primary sources, which cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Rasilshrestha[edit]

Hello. I did add reliable independent sources to my article. I also asked and added offline sources to my article. I have already editted the article. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft for review. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Gregcaires[edit]

article submission.

I'm not sure what to do next. We have submitted an article about our organization. Wiki wants more reliable sources about our organization and we have provided what is available. We've even used ChatGPT to produce the article using a neutral tone and following Wiki guideline.s Gregcaires (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content is NOT suitable for Wikipedia please do NOT use ChatGPT. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using ChatGPT to write your article is an almost certain way of getting it declined: see WP:LLM.
More seriously, you say you have submitted an article about "our organization". In that case, you must make a formal declaration on your user page of your status as a paid editor - this is mandatory under Wikipedia's terms of use.
I'm also concerned about your use of "we": Wikipedia accounts are personal, and may not be shared by multiple users. See shared accounts.
Finally, 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. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the draft for deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. As to the promotion, I'm not sure if the LLM decided to make it sound like an investor's brochure on its own or if it's a garbage in, garbage out situation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 3 July 2024 review of submission by CPNU[edit]

Hello! This draft was recently denied, due to the following reason: "You need independent sources. I don't think you're likely to find many, and we don't usually have articles on individual academic programs. Better to add something about it to Northwestern University."

We are trying to make a page similar to this one: Stonecoast MFA Program in Creative Writing

The article I submitted seems to use the same types of sources and the same types of information as this Stonecoast article. Can you let me know in what way I need to change our article so that it's similar enough to Stonecoast's for approval? I've reviewed the guidelines and can't see exactly what we're missing, particularly in comparison to other similar articles.

Thank you very much! CPNU (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "we", who is "we"? Are you a group of people? MarcGarver (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article you mention, Stonecoast MFA Program in Creative Writing, is severely deficient in WP:independent sources, and may well not meet the criteria for notability: I have just tagged it as such.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of seriously sub-standard articles, mostly dating from before we became more careful about quality. (For some reason, volunteer editors don't seem very eager to spend the thousands of hours which would be required to correct this problem). We don't wish to add to this, so we apply higher standards to new articles. If you want to compare to an existing article, please choose a good article or featured article. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:50, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Himay81[edit]

Trying to get a better understanding for the required details to improve this draft article for submission.

The majority of the articles cited indeed cover the topic in depth and come from a variety of news sources (predominantly the national CBC News in addition to the regional CP24 and the more local Brampton Guardian). The declination suggests both that these references are not reliable sources and that the article fails to qualify for submission.

Is the declination a result of not having a significant enough degree of diversity (e.g. quantity of news agencies and/or governmental pressers) in the sources?

Is the declination a result of lacking notability? Himay81 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Thira(79-80)[edit]

the reason why i am requesting assistance is because, the last time my submission was declined i asked if removing the citations i included that didn't provide sufficient information would get my article accepted and also how to go about removing citations, as i couldn't figure out how to do that Thira(79-80) (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thira(79-80): Removing citations wouldn't do you any good. The problem is that you have swathes of text that aren't cited what-so-ever. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Matthew John Drummond[edit]

I’ve added more references to this Wikipedia page. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew John Diamond: All of which prove this show exists. You need to find sources that have discussed or reviewed this programme. Note that we do accept offline sources (since the show aired in the '60's, I would expect the most useful sources to be print sources), but they need to be cited properly:
  • For magazines and newspapers, use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} and provide the name of the outlet, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1924), the article title, the article byline, and the pages the article is on;
  • For books, use {{cite book}} and provide the title, author, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:24, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Shriguru1008[edit]

Why our page was declined Shriguru1008 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shriguru1008: This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have zero use for content in Hindi. Try editing the Hindi-language Wikipedia instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:34, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Lisacourtnadge[edit]

Dear Wiki Reviewer, Thank you for taking the time to assist with my query. My draft was declined, so I'm currently editing it to improve the notability. I wanted to ask, is it possible for multiple people to edit it at once? I know others who want to write on my subject, so I'm wondering if we can collaborate, and if there's a simple way to do this. Thank you! Warm regards, Lisa Lisacourtnadge (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisacourtnadge: There is, and it's as simple as giving the collaborators a link to your draft. (Anyone can edit a draft provided they know the exact title of it or otherwise have a link to it.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please address the reviewer comment "you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, please remove those citations". Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Theroadislong,
Thanks for the note! I had made the relevant changes. I wasn't sure how to reply to the user, there was no option to "reply" like there is here. However, I did try to reply, hopefully it's sufficient. Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you haven't? There are still 14 instances of Wikipedia being used as a reference. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeske,
Thank you! I will try that. Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another query - does anyone know if articles from 'Psychology Today' are considered notable? My subject has several articles published on Psychology Today, which I would like to include, but I'm not sure if it is recognised as a credible website. Thanks again! Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lisacourtnadge: I assume you mean to ask whether the publication is reliable, rather than 'notable'? There's no firm recommendation one way or the other on Psychology Today at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are a couple of discussions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but nothing conclusive. My understanding is that they employ pretty good fact-checking on their article content, but there is also a lot of blog and similar material which is probably less well verified, if at all. They also feature commercial content (churnalism, advertorials, paid-for directory listings, etc.), which suggests they may be less-than-picky about what gets published if the 'price is right'. In short, the publication may well be solid, but you need to evaluate the specific content individually. That's my take on it, anyway. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks sod much! Lisacourtnadge (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 3 July 2024 review of submission by Mkabir1988[edit]

I think this reviewer Saqib is acting in bad faith and turning down a submission because of his own bias. He seems to be doing that on other wikipedia pages as well if you look at his history. He says being quoted in Dawn newspaper is not a notable mention for the drama? Dawn newspaper is the most widely read newspapers in Pakistan - google it. The citations quoted in the article meet the criteria of notability. Mkabir1988 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkabir1988: No, it's low-effort breathless-hype style sources, plus a random YouTube video from an unverified channel. You don't even cite Dawn in your draft. (I would also strongly recommend you tone down the accusations of bias.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jeske. The Dawn citation is added in now. Mkabir1988 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:12, 3 July 2024 review of submission by JC haters[edit]

i want to post this article on wikipedia , how do i do it and submit it JC haters (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 4[edit]

01:43, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Love o3oz[edit]

I am having a hard time trying to find sufficient sources for Duvalín despite its prevalence in Mexico. Help Love o3oz (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Love o3oz if the only source cited right now is the only one you could find, the topic is probably not notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:21, 4 July 2024 review of submission by VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004[edit]

i have created the draft with all the necessary info regarding TMS before Kyokuichi however how long does it take to get approved? VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004: there's no way of telling, depends on when a reviewer comes along to review it. You only submitted this a week ago, and as it says on top of the draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,112 pending submissions waiting for review." -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Happypanda0720[edit]

After drafting, I resubmitted it reflecting the feedback. But why isn't it still uploaded? What additional modifications should I make? Happypanda0720 (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Happypanda0720: I don't know what "uploaded" means, do you mean published? Drafts are only published in the encyclopaedia when (if) they are approved. This draft was declined on 14 June, and hasn't been submitted since, so it is not currently even pending another review, unless/until you resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no point in submitting it in its present form: you have added three sources, two of them from Daeil, and the third, by the look of it, a mere listing.
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.
Unless you can find at least three sources each of which is reliably published, wholly independent of Daeil, and contains significant coverage of Daiel, not just routine business information, you are wasting your time and everybody else's. You can check each of your proposed sources against WP:42.
If you can find such sources, then you probably need to start again, because you should write a summary of what those sources say, not what the company wants to say, or from what you personally know about the company.
You also must reply urgently to the two separate queries on your user talk page about your relationship with the company, or you risk having your account blocked for misuse of editing privileges (see WP:PAID). ColinFine (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Quillandinksociety[edit]

I have seen wikipedia with no quality content, citations and references. those pages are doing just fine. wikipedia moderators are taking bribes from companies to publish pages and demotivating genuine users to post their content if there is no bribe involved. This is the ground reality. Quillandinksociety (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quillandinksociety: please stop going around accusing others of bribe-taking etc., personal attacks are not tolerated here and are a surefire way to get yourself blocked. And that's on top of your spamming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quillandinksociety That is a very serious accusation, and it requires serious evidence. Please present your evidence as described at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors- or withdraw the claim. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:30, 4 July 2024 review of submission by 46.190.72.218[edit]

Thank you for the comments. I think I did the necessary changes citing sources and removing external links. My sources are major international art magazines,major museum mages and international exhibitions pages. Are these considered reliable sources? If not what other sources do you propose for a contemporary Greek artist? Since Wikipedia does not list many contemporary Greek artists it would be helpful for me to know more and add more artists in the future. About the work section do you find the citations long? Would you prefer a shorter mention without putting quotes like "writer Stephanie Bailey" or "in an interview the artist has stated" etc? As for example in Wikipedia page for FYTA. Thank you in advance. 46.190.72.218 (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). 331dot (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have resubmitted the draft and it is pending; the reviewer will leave you feedback. 331dot (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three requirements for sources to be used to establish notability: reliability is only one of them. The other two are independence and significant coverage.
I haven't looked at your sources, but when you talk about "major museum mages and international exhibitions pages", I immediately think that you are talking about museums and exhibitions who have displayed this artist's work. If that is the case, then those sources are not independent, cannot contribute to establishing that the artist meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and may be used only to support uncontroversial factual data, such as that the artist's work was exhibited at this museum on those dates. Unless there are also independent sources for that particular exhibition, I wonder why it is encyclopaedic enough to appear in the article? ColinFine (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:45, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Jeo Ayapana[edit]

cause i need this information Jeo Ayapana (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeo Ayapana: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 4 July 2024 review of submission by 106.201.241.199[edit]

Correction in Title as "Indian Drugs" the current title is wrong (India Drugs) 106.201.241.199 (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, as speedy deletion has been requested, so the wrong title will soon vanish along with the wrong draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:39, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Lionel888555[edit]

Hi

This article has been declined due to "Several sections are unsourced". Could you please point me toward which section needs more sources? Is it the filmography, books, paper..?

Thank you for you help Lionel888555 (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lionell888555: I think that's only part of the issue. The draft reads like a cirriculum vitae, which we do not accept. As to the text:
  • "[Princigalli] was born in Bari on August 24, 1968 and moved to Montreal in January 2003." - Source?
  • "Despite his father's work, his family lived for a long time in public housing and later in a state building for public employees." - Source?
  • "In Italy he was a member of the [Italian Youth Communist Federation] and of the La Pantera student movement (for which he was a delegate to the national assembly in Florence)." - Source?
  • "He was a leader of the [Italian Cultural and Recreative Association][...]" - Source?
  • "[Princigalli] graduated in Political Science with a thesis directed by the sociologist Franco Cassano." - Source?
  • "He later studied documentary cinema with Carlo Alberto Pinelli, anthropological cinema with Annie Comolli, and screenwriting with Giuseppe Piccioni and Umberto Contarello." - Need a source for each of these.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply I will see what I can do to improve Lionel888555 (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:31, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Paulanthonylevi[edit]

Hello, Hi,

I recently submitted an article draft for Tobias Dray, which was declined due to concerns about the reliability of sources and notability criteria. The decline notice mentioned that my references did not adequately demonstrate significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.

I have reviewed similar articles, such as the one on Verzache, which seem to use a comparable range of sources and references. Could you please provide more detailed guidance on what specific aspects of my references or sources were insufficient?

Here is a brief overview of the references I used:

Anime News Network - Announced Tobias Dray's collaboration project. Flaunt Magazine - Premiered Tobias Dray's visual for "Twice". The FADER - Listed one of Tobias Dray's songs as one of the best rock songs. Nettwerk Music Group - Profiled Tobias Dray. Ones To Watch - Featured an article on Tobias Dray. EARMILK - Reviewed Tobias Dray’s song "FUK IT". Genius - Credits for Tobias Dray's work. HiphopKR - Covered Tobias Dray's EP. 360 Magazine - Reviewed Tobias Dray's work. The Guardian - Discussed the revival of drum and bass


I would greatly appreciate your assistance in identifying how I can improve my submission. Any detailed feedback or pointers on how to address the issues raised would be extremely helpful.

Thank you for your time and assistance. 

Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless "His artistic evolution is marked by an unpredictable trajectory, making it impossible to predict what he will explore next." is a quote it is inappropriate tone for an encyclopaedia and creating a TikTok account to promote his music and branding is clearly not even worth mentioning as it confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TikTok wasn't used as a reference, SocialBlade was to indicate numbers. Others Wikipedia pages uses that reference as well to input metrics Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry wrong topic! Yes you are right thank you so much for your help! Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulanthonylevi: Twitter and the Genius 'community answers' are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, comparing to other articles is not helpful, as they may well have issues which haven't been picked up yet. In any case, we don't assess drafts by reference to articles that may exist out there, but rather to the currently applicable guidelines and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TikTok wasn't used as a reference, SocialBlade was to indicate numbers. Others Wikipedia pages uses that reference as well to input metric Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got you, thank you. Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got you, thank you Paulanthonylevi (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Edelmiro Lopez[edit]

Bonjour. I would like to have this draft for a "speedy deletion". No better sources available for me than what I have already given. The text is now in my sandbox but it will probably take years before new sources will appear for me. Merci beaucoup. --Edelmiro Lopez (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edelmiro Lopez: You can tag the draft for deletion with {{db-g7}}. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Merci, thank you very much. --Edelmiro Lopez (talk) 09:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 4 July 2024 review of submission by Cisaa11[edit]

Hello. I'd like to know why this subject is not notable enough, like what is the criteria that Freshly Shopping did not pass. Also, why was this rejected even before the article was submitted for review? Cisaa11 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cisaa11: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to tell the world about something you made up one day.
And I rejected it c. 20 minutes after it was submitted, not before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was correctly rejected after you submitted it (see the edit history) the topic is clearly not notable in Wikipedia terms. Theroadislong (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:25, 4 July 2024 review of submission by M Hanan Asif[edit]

I would like to create an article about Win-Doors INT LTD a business in south-east London however it keeps getting declined. I have all the information about it yet I still cannot publish it. M Hanan Asif (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @M Hanan Asif! Unfortunately your draft has now been rejected, which means it will not be published unless you can find some very convincing new sources. You cannot use any sources that are connected to the company - not their website, not their suppliers' websites, not interviews with the owner or CEO or anyone else - and the find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk pages are also no good for your draft. What you need is outlined in WP:42 - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (the company, in this case). Look for things like newspaper articles about the company, articles that someone has written just because they were interested in the company, without any input from anyone in the company. If you can't find at least three sources that fit all the WP:42 criteria, we can't publish an article on the subject. If you do find three or more suitable sources, you should then completely rewrite the draft using only the information in those sources, and then politely ask the last reviewer of your draft if they'd be willing to look again. Good luck, and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you.
Can you give me a few weeks then to sort this out? M Hanan Asif (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take as long as you'd like. There's no deadline. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) M Hanan Asif (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 5[edit]

10:39, 5 July 2024 review of submission by RedMacryon[edit]

This page is already existent in German Wikipedia. I have taken the liberty to spend the time verifiying the accuracy of the information present on the german version of the page. Then I tried to do a translation via the draft, but it got declined, since I was unable to provide an interlanguage link. If I try to translate an english page into german that works no problem but for some reason translating any non-eglish wikipedia pages into english is a pain. And please do not bring up the argument that it is unnecesary due to being about a german speaking nation, there are refugees and asylum seekers here who do NOT speak german and would probably also want to look up information about government ministries. RedMacryon (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading my text I have realized that my tone sounds quite harsh. I just wanted to quickly comment to clarify that I am merely confused as to how to correctly make such an interlanguage link work and why it is noticeably different to do this in english compared to german wikipedia. Furthemore another small issue is the fact that most sources of this topic would be primary sources (from the Austrian Government) and therefore mostly in german. My assumption is this might throw the "notability" and "external sources" part, but these are governmental departments of a recognized nation state so, how does this affect it? RedMacryon (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was not declined "since I was unable to provide an interlanguage link": that would be a complete irrelevance. Your draft was declined because it does not contain even one citation.
In English Wikipedia, an article is a summary of what is said in several independent, reliable source, that is all. If you do not cite the sources, a reader or reviewer has no way of verifying that its contents are correct.
Every citation should be inline (see WP:REFB), and to a reliable source. User-generated sources such as wikis (including Wikipedia) are almost never regarded as reliable. ColinFine (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am attempting to do a translation of another already existent page on wikipedia, and given that the page already contains enough credible sourcing to be verified, would it be an issue if certain sources which I would provide overlap with the source of the to be translated page?
Of course I will also try to find additional sources which are in english but given the topic I assume that some of the information I provide would still only be available in german, is this allowed/useful?
I was not aware that the translation aspect of writing an article was to be declared AFTER finalizing the article in the languge I am translating into. The ressources explaining that seemingly must have confused me or somehow not specified that enough RedMacryon (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sources in foreign languages can be used, as long as they support the statements that cite them. The German article you're translating doesn't cite any sources though, so what did you mean by given that the page already contains enough credible sourcing to be verified? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well since this is the case would it be arguable that it does NOT have enough credible sourcing to justify verification? If yes, how did it get published in the first place?
I do know that certain sub-pages it links to such as the separate ministries themselves do contain sources but even given that it is surprising. RedMacryon (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I don't know how dewiki editors kept the article. It was created back in 2016, and if it was submitted here on the English Wikipedia today, it would almost certainly be declined as it is completely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RedMacryon: why are you assuming this was declined for lack of interlanguage links? That's not a reason to decline anything, and if you mean those article-level links (listed in the language menu), those shouldn't even be added until after the article is published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of explains why it was not possible to add those and also is kind of confusing since the help page regarding translating an article in wikipedia does say it has to be done before publishing (is there an alternative help page that says different or is this language specific). I made the mistaken assumption that it was necesary to publish the page (instead of leaving it a Draft, I am aware it was not cited yet, I had inteded to still do that) in order to add a link between the translation and the original language wiki article, which then turned out to still not be possible. RedMacryon (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RedMacryon: ah okay, now I know what you mean. The help page (WP:HOWTRANS) says you must attribute the original (non-English) article as the source, and to provide a 'courtesy link' to it in the edit summary (rather than linking to it via the languages menu, as I thought you meant). Yes, that should indeed be done when you first create the draft, and not wait until it gets published. But failing to do it still wouldn't cause for the draft to be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RedMacryon I tend to recommend {{translated page}} on the talk page. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you for that RedMacryon (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Rani147[edit]

Hello sir ,Is there something wrong with writing my article? If there is a mistake, please correct it. Then I will benefit. Rani147 (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rani147: this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rani147 You will benefit by understanding WP:NACTOR 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Natieboi[edit]

Hi, very simple question, how do i make my draft better? He says that there are two sources with an unknown amount of reliability, I think both sources are pretty reliable, and i argued my reasons here ( https://en.luquay.com/wiki/User_talk:Natieboi#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_S%C3%BCleyman_Ulu%C3%A7ay_(June_28) ) but he as not responded. I also can't find any more sources on this guy, i don't know why im talking about this here as im not sure anyone can really help me with this. Thanks Natieboi (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Natieboi: the first source is a close primary one (the website of the municipality of which he is the mayor), the other doesn't really support anything in this draft and doesn't even mention him, therefore neither of them contributes anything towards notability per WP:GNG. You need to find more and better sources to satisfy the GNG standard, and that is therefore how to make your draft better. If such sources cannot be found, as you say, then it isn't possible to publish this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Simon Tuliameni[edit]

I'm requesting my article to be uploaded, because the person i wrote about it a Namibian artist and he is still in the Music industry, in Namibian music soon he will be one at the top. His Name Is Wessie Hastings . Simon Tuliameni (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission has been rejected and is not subject to further consideration. For the future, I would suggest reading up on our policies and guidelines, such as wp:musicbio and wp:gng. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 15:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give this subject a few more months or years, and once enough reliable sources and accolades come in, we can then revisit his case. (Dropping in a related link, Music of Namibia, in the meantime; par for the course with similar African-based topics, that field is apparently underrepresented here on WP.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:01, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Mrtony77[edit]

This draft was turned down for lack of citations. I'm not sure what in the article is not supported by a citation. The photo is substatiated by his obituary. The awards are supported by his photo. His published articles are cited to the journals which published them and a list hosted by Google Scholar. While there is more to add in terms of his career and academic path, I don't see anything lacking a citation in what's included at this point. Mrtony77 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrtony77: We need more than "look at the photo" for the medals. You need citations for those per WP:BLP (which applies here as the subject only died recently). "was a colonel in the United States Army who served as a physician specializing in clinical pathology for the United States Army Medical Corps." also needs cites. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for the feedback. I looked at many profiles for U.S. military officers living and dead and saw none having any citations for their awards. David K. MacEwen is an example. As far as I can find online, there is no comprehensive list of all recipients of all U.S. military awards. WP:BLP likewise has no specific requirement regarding their citation. His rank, branch of service and membership in the US Army Medic Corp are also all substantiated by the insignia on his uniform. Again, his photo substantiates that information to a greater degree than that of other U.S. Military officers sucgh as Trevor N. Dupuy. The fact that he was a clinical pathologist is substantiated by the published articles which he wrote and I cited. Please provide some additional guidance or examples as to where such additional citations may be found. Mrtony77 (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mrtony77! You've run into one of Wikipedia's biggest minefields for new article writers: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, not all articles are created equal, and ones that were written in the early days of Wikipedia often would not be accepted today - unless they've undergone some serious rewrites and updates over the years. Certainly David K. MacEwen's article would not be acceptable today, and I've tagged it as unreferenced in the hopes that references can be found - if not, it will have to be deleted. If you've found other articles in the same state, we'd really appreciate you either linking them or tagging them yourself. Everyone here is a volunteer and no matter how hard we work, many articles get missed while we try to keep Wikipedia as reliable and informative as possible.
Now, onto actual instructions. What you're trying to do with your draft is establish that Col. Angritt is notable by Wikipedia's very exacting standards. Most people aren't, so this step can be tricky! Your goal is to match the criteria found in WP:BIO - there's a lot of options, so please have a look and decide which you think Angritt meets. You will then need to find at least three sources that meet WP:42, the "golden rule": significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (that is to say, independent of Angritt). As Jéské mentioned above, because Angritt only died recently, you also need to abide by WP:BLP, so every single statement needs to be backed up by a suitable source. BLPs are the hardest kind of article to write because of these extra requirements.
The sort of source you're looking for is something like a newspaper article, or a book, or something along those lines, that talks about Angritt's life and achievements. Sources can be online or offline, and in any language (although English is preferred as we're on the English Wikipedia). His uniform can't be a reliable source, because anyone can take a photo in a uniform (Stolen valor is unfortunately a thing) and of course Photoshop also exists. This next bit will sound strange, I realize, but stating that he was a clinical pathologist without a source that specifically says that is considered original research. This is because Wikipedia can only report facts that have been established by others, not put two and two together to come up with four. In this case, we can't look at the research he's done and then say he must have been a clinical pathologist because of that. Again, I know you've seen other articles that don't follow this rule, and again I can only say that we are doing our very best to make sure every article is compliant but there are millions of articles (and more every single day). A huge amount of volunteer time is taken up working on new articles, adding new information to older articles, and patrolling in an effort to remove vandalism and incorrect information. If you want to see what the patrolling volunteers are dealing with, peek at Recent Changes! And of course, there's people like Jéské and I who also like to hang around here and talk to editors working on drafts. The people trying to clean up old articles (I am one of them, too) are hugely outnumbered by the old articles that need cleaning. If you're interested in military history, your assistance and efforts in tidying up those older articles would be very much appreciated.
I hope this has been at least somewhat helpful in explaining what your next steps should be; if you have questions, please keep asking and either I or someone else will be back to answer them. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:36, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Nenarodz[edit]

I got a notification for citing reliable sources and im trying to figure out which sources cited in the references should be removed and how do I delete them? I tried editing the reference list but it won't let me remove any it only lets me add more. Need assistance with removing of references. Nenarodz (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nenarodz I am a little confused. You created this as a draft and created it with references, You add and subtract references n the same manner that you added them on 27 January.
You may wish to revise the contents of WP:REFB and WP:CITE.
Since the draft is now an article your source for assistance should migrate to WP:TEAHOUSE, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:56, 5 July 2024 review of submission by Abiola adeola[edit]

I have drafted a wiki article I believe is worthy of inclusion to Wikpedia. As Safari Scribe instructed, I have ensured that I have written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. I have also provided news coverage from mutiple soures including Arise News, the Punch Newspaper, This Day Newspaper etc. and I have covered the INGO's contribution to parliamentary reports and its acknowlegdement and interraction with various Civil servants, Diplomats and Government Officials in the UK & Nigeria. Please could you kindly explain to me why my article is still not Wikipeadia worthy? I would be extremely grateful for as much detail as you can give. Abiola adeola (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abiola adeola You have described the routine activities of the organization, as well as it's "mission"(which is wholly unencyclopedic and should be removed). We don't want a summary of the activities of the organization, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling what the organization does, and goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about the organization.
You need to formally disclose your conflict of interest, please see WP:COI. If you receive any form of compensation for your role(it doesn't have to be money or even anything tangible), the Terms of Use require that to be disclosed, see WP:PAID. Note that articles are typically written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the topic- an organization trying to force the issue itself isn't often successful. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the steer and useful links. For these I am extremely grateful. I am also happy to remove the "Mission" section on the draft, this is not an issue (I am a practicing lawyer & a PhD candidate, but I have honestly got to admit I am struggling with writing the wiki way! haha! its a whole new style of writing for me! but i am happy to learn :D). I believed i had disclosed my COI formally, but would be happy to go through the neccessary steps. As for getting paid, I am NOT in any form paid. This is an organisation I volunteer with. I am not paid by the organisation in anyway (unless of course solving human right violations are a considered a form of payment haha!) As for the organisation trying to "force the issue" This could be furthest from the case. I was not asked to do this in anyway, I simply believed that due to activites, attaianments and influence of the organisation, it was noteworthy. I signed up as an editor to do things the right way here. With all of that being said, due to my COI does this mean I should give up on trying to get the article published? I feel as though with your statement regarding "forcing the issue" I am more or less fighting a losing battle (so to speak). Again I am new to Wikipeadia, and would appreciate the steer. If the response is pack it up due to the COI, at least I'd know and would no longer expend my effort. I hope you get what i mean? Abiola adeola (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abiola adeola Lawyers are adaptable! The text we need is flat, neutral. "dull-but-worthy" with citations for facts.
Your COI is an obstacle, a personal one for you, not for the org. You would do better to learn your trade here in non COI areas. It's very hard to write here when you have no COI. Writing when you have one allows unconscious bias to creep in, almost however careful we are.
Once you are confident you can work in Wikipedia style, revisit IOPBSJ with pleasure. Until then I recommend setting it aside. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did mention your COI in an edit summary, but it should also be mentioned on your user page(User:Abiola adeola) 331dot (talk) 08:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am honestly just looking for a steer in the right direction that goes beyond the generic wikipaedia text. i really want to get this right :D Abiola adeola (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abiola adeola 331dot just gave you that steer. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 6[edit]

01:03, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Shahidi Islam[edit]

An article of mine was recently deleted. I just wanted to know if it would be possible for me to edit it and re-submit it? To edit it I will need to have it returned to my account, and I can try to remove whatever offending sections there were.

Thank you,


Shahidi Shahidi Islam (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shahidi Islam your sandbox was deleted for being promotional. If you'd like to recreate it, go ahead, but if its contents are promotional again, it will certainly be deleted again. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. It was not intentional. Shahidi Islam (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:07, 6 July 2024 review of submission by ENZorina[edit]

I need help to improve the article i'm submitting.

Currently I'm working on an article about a special coins in Sri Lanka. As I'm on the island, owe this collection of real coins in use. The reason is that I've been digging information on this subject for a long time now, as there is almost nothing online. Ish. I love collecting coins and would be really happy to shine the light on the subject, the thing is that my submission is declines as it's lucking some info and references. How can i make it work? Ie i would be happy to send a request to the central bank of sri lanka, if needed to prove the relevance of my words, or please tell me what would be helpful?

many thanks, Evgeniia Zorina ENZorina (talk) 08:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ENZorina: it sounds like you may be engaging in original research and/or synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles should be primarily composed by summarising what reliable published sources have said about a subject, and then citing those sources as references so that the information can be verified by readers.
Bear in mind also that just because something exists, doesn't mean that it is automatically notable in the Wikipedia context. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina: I guess you decided to ignore all that, then, and just go ahead and resubmit your draft regardless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ENZorina, are there offline sources instead? You say you've been collecting information for a long time, which makes me think you might have a lot of sources that could be very valuable if they are suitable for Wikipedia. Sources can be online or offline, and can be in any language; the main thing is they need to fit WP:42, the "golden rule", which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. I don't think the Central Bank would be suitable, but if you have books or articles written by coin historians or similar then they might be. Could you tell us where you got your information from - or at least a couple of places, if you have too many to go through at once? StartGrammarTime (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made an official request to Central Bank of Sri Lanka in regards to 25 District Coins series of 10 rupees, hopefully they will respond with something that will suffice for wikipedia. The main source is CBLK, i will attach a link to this. https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/press/notices/notice_20141117e.pdf
not the best one tho. ENZorina (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be in Colombo on Monday, will pop in Currency Museum of Sri Lanka, would it be better to attach pictures of everything related to this series?
https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/about/bank-premises/economic-history-museum
I will also add this link.
https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/en/node/1778 ENZorina (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing
and if the offline proof is ok, what's the best way to send it all to you? ENZorina (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:16, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Arahi991[edit]

Updated the article

added official networks and information

removed unnecessary web pages

Help me add to wikipedia I have all the official data in the registry of the United States, Texas. Arahi991 (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: I have to say, this is getting rather tiresome, by my count it's the fourth time you're here saying this same thing, and completely ignoring the fact that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Furthermore, you still haven't responded to the paid-editing query on your talk page, or answered the question about your connection, if any, with Solyankich. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:08, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Randomanon37[edit]

My submission was originally declined based on the lack of notability, the original article only had AnimeNewsNetwork as a source, I added 4 more after the initial decline (Natalie, PR Times, Oricon, Weekly Shonen Jump official site) which are the sources typically referenced for this type of article but still got declined, the reviewer incorrectly mentions I only added 1 more source. I should mention that the subject of my article already have a Japanese language page if that helps clear the confusion around the notability https://ja.luquay.com/wiki/%E9%87%91%E6%9C%AA%E6%9D%A5%E6%9D%AF Randomanon37 (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined because it uses references from the creators themselves, you can remove them and resubmit. TheNuggeteer (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 6 July 2024 review of submission by Rajesh Kumar Noida[edit]

Hi, I want to create a page but my page decline. Plz suggest me why my page decline Rajesh Kumar Noida (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajesh Kumar Noida your draft was declined because 5 of the 6 sources sited are published by the university itself, and that the topic is not notable enough for inclusion at its current state. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1232929512"