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 4[edit]

02:01, 4 June 2024 review of submission by 110.174.214.94[edit]

referencing and being declined 110.174.214.94 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in a top-level or international game no longer guarantees notability (as of Feb 2022), and playing in U## squads never has. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:41, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Guapmachine6[edit]

Help improving the draft GuapMachine (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why it kept getting rejected GuapMachine (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guapmachine6 the draft was not rejected, but declined (rejected means cannot be resubmitted) for not meeting notability guidelines. Almost none of the sources are usable: we cannot cite other Wikis, Bing search results, nor his bio on websites of companies he has worked for. What it needs is reliable sources that are independent of the subject. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thank you I would try to improve it. GuapMachine (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:07, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Chanan12[edit]

I request assistance because my previous submission was rejected due to formatting and content issues.

I have revised the article to focus on Chanan Zevin's key achievements and contributions, removing unnecessary sections to meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

However, I seek guidance to ensure that the updated article aligns with Wikipedia's verifiability, neutrality, and notability standards.

Your expertise will help refine the article to provide accurate and relevant information about Chanan Zevin's professional background and accomplishments. 

Chanan12 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12 The draft was rejected for being promotional and will not be considered further. And why are you referring to yourself in third person? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12: Your sources are four interviews (connexion to subject), his company's website (connexion to subject), and his LinkedIn (connexion to subject). We can cite none of them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12, also the draft is simply an autobiography (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). I have helped you run a WP:BEFORE and found 'your article's isn't notable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:43, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Helena.leijone[edit]

I need assistance on how to amend my article to be approved.

Thank you! Helena.leijone (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helena.leijone I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Please see the advice left on your draft by reviewers, and also see the links left by them for more information. If you have specific questions, please ask here. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Much appreciated! Helena.leijone (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 4 June 2024 review of submission by 185.247.174.153[edit]

The comment justifying rejection is "Several claims are unsourced. Some references are primary." Can the editor be more specific? It would be helpful to know which statements ("claims") in this extensively referenced draft need further support. Some of the basic demographic information does of course come from professional autobiographies created by the subject. I'm not sure what "primary" means in this context (or why secondary sources are preferred, given that by definition they are derived from primary material). Thanks. 185.247.174.153 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Twinkle1990 Qcne (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Editor,
I've pinged the declining review. I would say that for biographies of living people we require every fact, starting with the date of birth, to be referenced. I note there are quite a few unsourced paragraphs throughout.
You also have a couple of external links in the body of the text, which you should convert to in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the reviewer, but I'll gladly do that homework. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
  • "Voas was born in Evanston, Illinois in 1928." - Source? (Since I see no indication in the article that Voas is dead, everything a reasonable person could challenge must be referenced; "Subject told me" and "just trust me, bro" are not acceptable sources.)
  • "He studied at the University of Chicago (earning a [..bachelor of philosophy degree in 1946)[...]" - Source?
  • "[...A]nd subsequently at UCLA, where he obtained BA and MA degrees in psychology and a PhD in experimental psychology in 1953." - Source?
  • "When the Korean War started, Voas accepted a commission in the US Navy..." - Source?
  • "Following a year at the U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory (1954) as a Research Associate[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]Voas was assigned to the Navy Research Center, School of Aviation Medicine, at Pensacola, Florida (1955-57)." - Source?
  • "Voas moved to the Navy Medical Research Center in Bethesda, Maryland (1957-58), where he headed the Behavioral Research Branch." - Source?
  • "He worked for Captain Norman Lee Barr[...]" - Source? We also do not allow external links in the body of the text, so the link here needs removed.
  • Most of the paragraph after the above seems out of place here and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme.
  • "Because Captain Barr was the Navy’s leading expert in high-altitude medicine and Lieutenant Voas was his principal assistant, Voas was transferred to the space program." - Source?
  • "Voas joined NACA in September 1958[...]" Source?
  • "Voas became the Head Astronaut Training Officer." - Source?
  • "As part of the Space Task Group, Voas helped conceptualize the criteria for the selection of the original seven astronauts for Project Mercury." - Source?
  • The rest of the paragraph after the above is, again, out of place and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme.
  • "Voas became the Training Officer for Project Mercury and Assistant to the Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center." - Source?
  • The rest of the paragraph after the above is, again, out of place and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme. Drafts need to be laser-foocused on their subject. Short tangents to help provide context as to his work are okay. Victor Hugo-esque filibusters to describe the sewers of Paris are not.
  • "Many years later, Voas received the W. Randolph Lovelace Award for Significant Contribution to Aerospace Medicine." - Source?
  • The rest of the paragraph preceding the above is, again, out of place and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme.
  • "...Voas joined [the NHTSA] in 1968." - Source?
  • "Voas served as NHTSA’s manager of the Alcohol Safety Research program and as Deputy Director, Evaluator, and Chief Scientist for the $88 million federal ASAP initiative..." - Source? (It doesn't matter if the source at the end of the paragraph has this information, it has to be cited at this spot as well.)
  • "A working group headed by Voas..." - This paragraph could likely be merged with the previous one.
  • "In 1969... Voas introduced the first handheld fuel-cell breath-test devices to the United States[...]" - Source?
  • "[...Voas] managed the development of national standards for evidential breath-test devices..." - Source?
  • "He also prepared the first scientific paper on alcohol safety interlocks (1969)[...]" - Source?
  • "Voas was influential in guiding Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the major lobbying group, toward evidence-based policy positions." - Source?
  • "Voas was a member of the MADD National Board from 1982 to 1993 and served as an advisor to the Vice President and later to the President of MADD." - Source?
  • "He was subsequently appointed to the MADD National Advisory Committee." - Source?
  • "After leaving government service in 1982[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]Voas was a senior research scientist with the National Public Service Research Institute[...]" - Source?
  • "He served as the Principal Investigator on more than two dozen research contracts for the Department of Transportation (DOT), including several national studies of various sanctions (jail, treatment, vehicle impoundment and forfeiture, and interlocks) for impaired-driving offenders." - Source?
  • "He conducted studies for NHTSA on the effectiveness of a number of types of alcohol safety legislation[...]" - Each and every part of the listing that follows needs to be sourced.
  • "He also was the Principal Investigator for the 1996 National Roadside Survey." - Source?
  • "He was subsequently Principal Investigator on grants..." - Again, each and every part of the listing that follows needs to be sourced.
  • "Voas and colleagues evaluated the impact..." - Redundant with above, 86 this.
  • "Voas was President of ICADTS from 1989 to 1992." - Source? And, again, external link needs to go.
  • "Voas married Carolyn Merry, who was also at UCLA, in 1953." - Source?
  • Omit the names of the kids unless they are themselves notable.
  • The Bibliography section is useless as is.
Take a look at the list above, see what sources you already have that can be re-used for that claim and what ones you will need to find a better source for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @User:185.247.174.153. I declined the draft after examining it. After Qcne (talk) and Jéské Couriano's reply, I don't think I need to provide more explanation regarding the decline. Furthermore, I am curious to know how you know the subject person? As you are not the page contributor, I want to know whether you have read about WP:COI and WP:UPE? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 4 June 2024 review of submission by 83.110.196.247[edit]

I have directed this film titled "Irani". It is a Tamil Feature film yet to be released. The lead artists are Raj Kumar (Tamil) and Jayani Weerasinghe. This is a movie from Sri lanka. The poster has been released by actor Vijay sethupathi. I have worked in a movie titled "Varnam" as a co-producer. What else should I add to get this approved? 83.110.196.247 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has no content, IP editor. Please see the criteria at WP:NFILM. If it has yet to be released it is likely not yet notable for Wikipedia. You also should not be writing about a film you have directed yourself, as that is a conflict of interest. Qcne (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are trying to create an article about a film that you are making indicates that your purpose here is almost certainly promotion, i.e. telling the world about something. Promotion is not accepted anywhere on Wikipedia.
Once the world has noticed your film, in the form of substantial write-ups in reliable sources from people unconnected with you, there could be an article about it. But the article will summarise what those independent sources say, not what you want to say. ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Peakconquerors[edit]

Help me posting my content Peakconquerors (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peakconquerors: - This has the exact same issues as two drafts on Indian military regiments that were brought up here yesterday. See #12:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Jatingarg9368 and #17:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by GokulChristo. If your superior officers are ordering you to do this, show them WP:Conflict of interest and WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peakconquerors who is asking you to post this article? Qcne (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Qunain[edit]

i am requesting an assistance because i wrote an article but it was declined. i need someone to help me that how can i make perfect article for wiki. and how should i publish. need support. Qunain (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qunain. Wikipedia articles should be summaries of reliable sources that are ideally secondary to the subject. Your draft cites a single source, which is the The Geneva Association itself, therefore not independent.
We're looking for secondary sources that have no connection to the The Geneva Association that discuss this topic. Qcne (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qunain: Your draft is illegible and has only one source (which I haven't yet looked at). One source by itself, no matter how good it is, cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qunain: Your one source is a circular reference. We don't cite Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 5[edit]

08:15, 5 June 2024 review of submission by David.G.82.21[edit]

Draft:Top Goal Scorers of the National Futsal Series and National Futsal League

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Hi Umakant Bhalerao as per comment above, I've been reading again the guide Wikipedia reliable sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) and wikipedia referencing for beginners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners). I've checked the draft mentioned above (Top Goal Scorers of the National Futsal Series and National Futsal League) and the references I've used are from the oficial website of the FA Futsal England, where any future lector of the article can go to and verify the stats of each player per season. Could you please advise me how can be improved my referencing to meet your expectations? if you could chose an example from the draft and let me know with an example, I could use it as a template guide to fix the other ones that are not up to the level of the criteria.

Thanks in advance David David.G.82.21 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Umakant Bhalerao Qcne (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for the reviewer to come and hopefully answer the author's question, can I just say that IMO this draft is not written in an encyclopaedic manner, but rather as an essay or exposition of some sort (with quite a promotional feel to it, too, especially in what comes to this Maroto chap), and therefore will require quite comprehensive editing. That would also provide an opportunity to ensure that the content is based firmly on what reliable and independent published sources have said about this topic, avoiding any original research or synthesis, polemic, and promotionality. In other words, I would have also declined this, but probably for different reasons (essay, POV). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @David.G.82.21 for reaching out to the help desk and Qcne for pinging me. I completely concure with DoubleGrazing's analysis. This draft is not written in an encyclopedic style; instead, it comes across more like an essay or exposition. It's pushing NFL and NFS, especially Alejandro Maroto. Some of the content in the draft is not backed by sources and I was unable to verify certain information from the sources provided. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Its content must be written from a neutral perspective and should summarize information from secondary reliable sources. Also after reviewing your draft, it seems like you might have a conflict of interest with the subject which should be disclosed on your userpage as per WP:COI. I would also suggest you take a look at WP:1ST for some general tips on how to write and format a proper Wikipedia article.
Feel free to reach out if you have any questions, either here or on my talk page.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Hamimuzzamann[edit]

why my bio get rejected Hamimuzzamann (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamimuzzamann the draft has no reliable sources (your facebook page isn't reliable), is promotional in tone, and is poorly formatted. Ideally you shouldn't be writing about yourself anyway. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Alexendrew[edit]

I seek assistance to publish an article on Md. Tusar Akon, a notable textile engineer and researcher. His innovations in dyeing technology, including cost-effective nylon pretreatment methods and AI-automated processes, have significantly advanced the industry. As a lecturer at BUFT, he mentors future engineers and promotes sustainable practices. His achievements, including the Dean’s Award from BUTEX and recognition in sustainable chemical management, underscore his impact. His work is well-documented on ORCID (0000-0002-2791-5329) and Google Scholar. Alexendrew (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexendrew: Given the tone of your request, it's not surprising the draft itself was deleted as blatant promotion. What is your connexion to Akon? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Md. Tusar Akon is a notable public figure and researcher. The article is intended to provide verifiable, neutral information about his contributions. I will revise it to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s standards. Please allow the draft to be improved instead of deleted. Alexendrew (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandrew: The draft was deleted by the time of my first reply above. If you want to see if an administrator is willing to undelete it for you, you can try your luck at WP:Requests for undeletion - but they're very likely going to ask about your connexion to Akon, and you're not going to be able to dodge that question again. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 5 June 2024 review of submission by TriosLosDios[edit]

The reason I'm asking for assistance is due to new building and address or location Re: Santa_Rosa_County_Florida Courthouse. When I was very brand new on WP I attempted to correct (the issue) by creating 'a new article'. What is the correct way to implement such a task ? TriosLosDios (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:5. Further, I would like to ask you about your own talk page edits per diff, diff and much more? What you have done is WP:NOT. -- Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Coubrough, James[edit]

I need reliable sources but I don't know what qualifies as reliable. Coubrough, James (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, James. We have a whole list of perennial reliable sources that you can look over. Happy editing! Blueskiesdry (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Namnatulco[edit]

I recently moved this article from its' draft space, because I was unaware of the draft-mechanism (having not edited Wikipedia much in the past years). Most of what I did to the draft article is provide a translation from the German Wikipedia article (in condensed form and closer to what I perceive to conform to English Wikipedia style). I just read Wikipedia:Articles for creation and since I'm not sure whether I technically count as a new editor (having less than 500 contributions and officially no access to the article translation feature), so I wanted to check that I didn't violate any editing rules. Namnatulco (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namnatulco: Your third paragraph in the "Biography" section lacks sources. I'd also replace the "sharp S" symbol with "ss" where his name appears in the body of the text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thanks! I'll chase down good sources and/or trim this part accordingly.
As a rule of thumb, is it generally OK to translate pages (that meet the English Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion) even without access to the content translation tool? (this is the part I was particularly unsure about) Namnatulco (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content translation tool is just that - a tool. If you can translate it yourself without using it, we'll still accept it as long as the translation is accurate and written well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Visegradjanin[edit]

Can you check now artical and see if is everything corect now. thanks Visegradjanin (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Misplaced Elf[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to add a page and it was just rejected for lacking reliable sources. The book I'm trying to create a page for is a legitimate published book, so I'm wondering what makes a source reliable, if not the book in question?

I'm confused about the reasons why it can't be added and not sure what makes the book itself an unreliable source. It's literally available for purchase on Amazon and was published March 1, 2024 with Philosopher's Stone Books, an imprint of Frequency 3 Media, LLC. Everything about it is legitimate.

So, would you mind explaining to me what sort of information or reliable sources are supposed to be included, to verify the existence of this book so that it can have a page on Wikipedia?

Thank you. Misplaced Elf (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Misplaced Elf: The subject is never a suitable source for itself. Are there any professional reviews or scholarly analyses of the book? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that--I thought my reading of the guidelines was thorough, but I must have been looking in the wrong place.
The book is in the process of being reviewed by Kirkus. The extended review will be finished by the end of this month. Will one professional review be enough? (Eventually it will have more, but professional reviews can take a long time to acquire, from submission to completion, due to high demand.) Also, do its Library of Congress catalog file and Goodreads page count as reliable sources--they're not being used to say whether or not the book is "good", but just to account for its existence in the public sphere.
I appreciate your help! :) Misplaced Elf (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant notability guideline for books is WP:NBOOK, and more specifically WP:BOOKCRIT, which requires two or more non-trivial reviews or similar. (The alternative guideline, WP:GNG, requires "multiple" sources, which is usually interpreted as three or more.)
Can I ask, how do you know that a Kirkus review is in the pipeline, or that more reviews will be coming later? Do you have a real-life connection of some sort with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to ping @Misplaced Elf. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I have a connection: I'm the author. And before you say anything--yes, I'm aware that there's a conflict of interest, which I intend to disclose on my editor profile once a page for the book exists. I'm merely trying to create the page. If you are able to see the page in draft mode, you can see that I'm not trying to "sell" the book or do anything shady/self-serving. The stance on the page I'm attempting to create is entirely neutral, as it should be, and once the page exists I have no intention of editing it further, because it's not my place to do so. However, I now understand that it cannot have a page until it has enough independent reviews/articles to show that it has notoriety to warrant its own page. Thanks, Misplaced Elf (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misplaced Elf: No, you need to disclose now. You should have disclosed before you started the draft. This is a Terms of Use condition for Wikipedia and isn't negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I apologize--I thought I could only disclose for an existing page. I will do so immediately. Thank you for explaining these terms. Misplaced Elf (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for disclosing, @Misplaced Elf, and now I can see that you had actually disclosed it earlier already, but removed the disclosure. Okay, we're back on track, and all's well that ends well, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Yes--when the page didn't get accepted, that's when I removed the disclosure. I misunderstood the way it worked, since I've never created a page before. Thank you for your patience! Cheers, Misplaced Elf (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misplaced Elf: interesting, you're the second person today to tell me they thought the disclosure wasn't needed until the article is published. Can you tell me what might have led you to conclude that? Maybe there's some piece of text somewhere that we need to make clearer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Well, I can only speak for my own experience. When the disclosure box appeared and I clicked on "The Book of Jezebel" article I was disclosing my connection to, it took me to a page that said that article didn't exist. Since it didn't exist (and was declined when submitted) I made an incorrect assumption that I had to wait until the article was published. I can't say for sure that it's anything in the wording of the guidelines, though. It may have been my own misunderstanding and confusion, since it was late in the day when I was working on this.
My overall confusion came from all the different articles/sections on rules and guidelines--the amount of information was somewhat overwhelming, especially when I was in the midst of trying to create the page. The numerous guidelines were somewhat difficult to find. Many of them only came to my attention after other editors, such as yourself, provided the links in your replies to my queries.
It could simply be that I'm not used to using Wikipedia in this way, as an editor/creator. I am also slightly autistic, so while reading, research, and language are my strongest suits, navigating unfamiliar websites is challenging until I get used to their nuances. The learning curve is sharp, no doubt, so I just need more practice. (I often do best learning while doing, but this was more complex than I expected it to be. lol)
I don't know if my answer is helpful, but I hope it is in some way. :)
Cheers, Misplaced Elf (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Misplaced Elf, that is helpful, and appreciated, and I will try to look into the 'user journey' you refer to. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Peppertrout[edit]

I believe I have found the best references available online to write this bio, which is an obscure subject.

The references include Wikipedia sources, as well as genealogy and military history websites.

What is it exactly you require? I'm doing this in my spare time and can't easily go to a library that will have this information. Likely it will require a trip to Denver, 280 miles away for citations from publishes, papered sources. 

Peppertrout (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(merged) My draft was declined. I found excellent online references and included them with citations. Why was the draft declined? Peppertrout (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Question was answered at the Teahouse. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Carrot6290[edit]

Hello! I need help to formulate the article and to add sources and external links in a way that meets the Wikipedia criteria. I am aware that Patrick Levacic has contributed more than enough in Croatian chess community, but I am new to Wikipedia and cant find the best way to express the contributions with all the sources. Please, let me know if this is enough information or I should add more sources in order to make an article.

Regards Carrot6290 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrot6290: I repeat the answer I gave when you asked about this a week ago:

International Master is not enough to establish notability, WP:NCHESS would require the Grandmaster title instead. [...] Otherwise notability relies on the general WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. This draft cites no such source.

Your draft cites only two sources, neither of which contribute anything towards GNG. If any of the sources listed in the 'See also' section (which isn't the right place for them, as that section can only include links to other Wikipedia articles, not external sources) and/or in the 'External links' section (which has too many links at the moment) can be used to establish notability, please cite them as references. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Carrot6290. The Wikipedia criteria for notability are generally about ensuring that there is enough independent reliable published material to base an article on. Remember that nothing written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates will contribute towards this: at best, they may be used to add some uncontroversial factual details (such as dates and locations) once an article is written.
It follows that until you have found several such independent sources, anything at all that you do towards creating an article could be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 6[edit]

Are these sources appropriate for establishing notability?[edit]

Hi there,

I'm working on an article about a company producing consumer flamethrowers (Draft:Throwflame_(company). It was rejected by a reviewer, but since the rejection there has been more media coverage. I added a few sources, and I was wondering if these sources are acceptable for supporting notability.

Basically I'm trying to understand if these sources affect the notability or not to know if I should bother submitting it for review again or not.

These are the sources:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/drone-flamethrower-can-shoot-110ft-32667708

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/04/24/thermonator-flame-throwing-robot-dog/73446898007/

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/you-can-now-buy-a-flame-throwing-robot-dog-its-proof-common-sense-has-gone/article_ecb05aaa-0260-11ef-85cb-1f2235296f70.html

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/23/thermonator-robot-dog-proves-americans-idea-self-defence-unhinged-20701164/

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/estados-unidos/asi-es-el-perro-robot-con-lanzallamas-que-se-vende-en-eeuu-por-menos-de-10000-dolares-nid25042024/

https://www.eleconomista.es/tecnologia/noticias/12785862/04/24/asi-es-thermonator-el-perro-robot-que-lanza-llamas-y-que-algunos-ven-como-el-futuro-de-la-seguridad.html

https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/mundo/perros-lanzallamas-empresa-pone-en-venta-a-sus-thermonator-en-eu/

https://www.businessinsider.com/thermonator-flame-throwing-robot-dog-selling-online-legal-us-states-2024-4

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/thermonator-flamethrowing-robot-dog-shoot-fire/

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-desert-sun/20240429/281625310372689

I understand that some of these don't have coverage which is in depth enough to prove notability, but I think that some do (correct me if I'm wrong) and some of those in the article definitely do. So wouldn't the less in-depth coverage also support the more in-depth coverage?

I guess what I am looking for is a bit more explanation on how the notability works, because based on my reading of WP:N it seems like it would qualify, particularly with the new sources. However, the last reviewer rejected it, and when I asked him for clarification on his talk page, he suggested I ask here instead.

Thanks!

P.S.: I've edited the draft a bit and added some of these sources. If anyone has time to look at the draft and offer any feedback it would be much appreciated!

Chagropango (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chagropango Using non-in depth sources to support in-depth sources is not how this works, that would be original research. You can't construct notability through your analysis of the sources- the claims to notability must be clearly stated by the sources.
Most of these sources seem to just document the availability of this company's main product. Some criticize it as reflective of private property rights in America run amok(especially the UK sources) but I'm not sure that's enough to sustain an article about this company. Maybe others will have a different view. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chagropango: I tend to agree with 331dot. Also, just to point out that the Daily Star is a deprecated source, and mustn't be cited, while Metro is considered generally unreliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 6 June 2024 review of submission by NerdyPriyam[edit]

Hello, Can you please specify what exactly needs to be modified? I'd appreciate it if you treat my article as a fresh piece. It can be an extension of the already published article on "plagiarism", but it should redirect to a fresh page on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any changes that can help me achieve my goal. Looking forward to hearing from you soon NerdyPriyam (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @NerdyPriyam, but as it's currently written, this isn't really a viable draft for an encyclopaedia article; it is a polemic essay, with some advisory elements, and possibly also original research (eg. the statement "Even if it was not intentional, it is still plagiarism and certainly not acceptable in any way." – who says so?).
I also agree with the reviewer that (salient and well-referenced parts of) this could be merged into the plagiarism article; I don't quite see why we need a separate article on this particularly flavour of plagiarism. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know how to proceed with the process of content merging and contribute further. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. NerdyPriyam (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NerdyPriyam: there's no process, as such, it's just a case of good, old-fashioned editing. Identify the bits of information that are relevant in the wider context of plagiarism, and that are well supported by reliable sources. Take out all instructions/advice, as well as your own commentary and original research. Compile whatever you thus have into a coherent paragraph or possibly several, and add it (along with the supporting sources) as a new section into the main plagiarism article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 6 June 2024 review of submission by Pittufederationofindia[edit]

Hello, Pittufederationofindia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. not cleared why my page and draft is not approvable? 

Pittufederationofindia (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pittufederationofindia: your draft was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely lack of reliable sources and evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 6 June 2024 review of submission by James Mwakundia Tumbo[edit]

I cannot create articles Hello,

Please help I cannot create articles and my articles get rejected.

How can I contribute to this community and add more helpful content to the audience?

Regards,

James Tumbo 

James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James Mwakundia Tumbo I'm assuming you're referring to Draft:BetAfriq, which was deleted under G13 a year ago after being declined (not rejected). If you wish to continue working on it, you can request undeletion at WP:REFUND/G13 '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi thank you for the response. James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James Mwakundia Tumbo Are you affiliated with this company in some way, be it a direct employee or the company being your client? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. I add content on Kenyan context. James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 6 June 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener[edit]

Hello, good day. I have updated the article by removing promotional information and adding accurate details about the school, such as its history, operations, and some notable events that have occurred. Furthermore, I would like to inquire if all this information is now credible and authentic. Additionally, I recently edited a school on Wikipedia, and it appears to have a similar information about a school same like mine and this school has been in the article page, and mine has not. I am just asking why the school Dormma Senior High School [1] has been approved without any notability [2], but mine cannot?

Thank you I will no longer make any Question Tab further this is all I just ask Respectfully- RexScrivener (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener this is the sixth time you've asked about the draft. It still does not meet notability guidelines; none of the sources are reliable and it is still promotional in tone. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please do not ask about this draft again. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for replaying, I have remove "promotional" tone info also I have added a "stub template". RexScrivener (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits do nothing to resolve the reasons why this draft was rejected.
You have moved it unilaterally into the main article space, and it has all too predictably been listed for AfD discussion. This is therefore no longer an AfC matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 6 June 2024 review of submission by Aczaprn777[edit]

What would qualify. As sufficiently notable ? Aczaprn777 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aczaprn777 see WP:NBIO and H:YFA. Your draft is blatant self-promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 7[edit]

04:41, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia[edit]

The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Hal Stern's university page) that are not Hal Stern's employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Hal Stern is a very accomplished scholar---book author, professor, and a Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor at a large U.S. University. It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. universities and scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a more level-headed and potentially more knowledgeable user? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garden Lover Asia: please do not make assumptions about what knowledge another editor may or may not possess, or imply that they are not "level-headed"; that is just insulting. Also, one does not need to be an expert in a topic area to be able to assess whether a draft complies with our policies and guidelines.
And another thing: draft reviewers are there to review, not to edit. It isn't our job to improve the drafts up to such standard that they can be accepted, that is entirely the responsibility of the author(s) and other proponents of the draft. So no, it is not "extremely surprising" that this wasn't done here, quite the opposite. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to make assumption about User4edits. The page of this editor mentions that he "may be found hunting for promotional and paid articles of Indian businesspeople." and he declined my article on Hal Stern. Later, Mdann52 moved the page to article space, because Mdann52 thought that "clearly meets WP:NPROF from the appointment held alone". This reversal by Mdann52 pretty much proves that User4edits was not knowledgeble and is only trying to reject articles instead of being more open and making Wikipedia what it claims to be: an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add - I decided to approve the article after spending a fair amount of time to check the notability, add some sources and do some further research - however it would also have been perfectly reasonable for me not to do so given how it was when it was reviewed. The three sources I added while doing so help with the notability, and it appears to meet the relevant guidelines, however given how many primary sources were in the article when it was reviewed, I don't think the other users actions were unreasonable or unexpected. Mdann52 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia: you seem to be intent on continuing further down the path of aspersions and innuendo, and I am asking you to please stop, and review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which relies on people working together, not against each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia[edit]

The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Prof. Braun's university page) that are not his employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Henry Braun is a very accomplished scholar---book author, educator, professor, several prestigious career award winners, fellows of prestigious organizations like AERA, inducted into prestigious organizations like National Academy of Science, former VP of a large non-profit,.... It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a user who is potentially more knowledgeable about the U.S. universities and education system? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @User4edits, who was mentioned by name.
@Garden Lover Asia Yes, the subject might be notable per WP:NPROF, but it would need a rewrite and more sources before being published. There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert, and it needs more independent reliable sources. Also, what is your relationship with Seeking absolute truth (talk · contribs)? They asked about the same draft a while ago. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia has a draft in their sandbox which is of the same subject on which @Seeking absolute truth was editing (draft deleted for promotion). I have left a sock notice on GardenLoverAsia's talk page. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a small field of research (educational measurement and statistics). So I meet the same people, read research work from the same people, attend presentations of the same people at conferences etc. as others in our field. So it should not be surprising if I am working on the same article as another person (probably in the same field). And yes---I discussed with a couple of researchers that I met at a conference in April (Conference program: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NCME/4b7590fc-3903-444d-b89d-c45b7fa3da3f/UploadedImages/2024_Annual_Meeting/NCME004-AnnualMeeting_Program_FINAL.pdf) about publishing Wikipedia articles on a few people who we thought were thought leaders there: Henry Braun, Robert Mislevy, Randy Bennett, Sandip Sinharay, Alina von Davier (she has a Wikipedia article, we found) etc. So it is possible that another researcher tried to publish an article on Henry Braun or Hal Stern or Sandip Sinharay (who I am working on right now). In addition, instead of focusing on which account is related to who (and trying to be the next Sherlock Holmes), I request you to be fair to the subjects of the articles submitted. Henry Braun is very similar in stature in his field to Eric Bradlow, Li Cai, Paul W. Holland, Alina von Davier etc. who are all in the same field (Prof. Braun was a colleague of three of them) and the references I submitted for Prof. Braun are very similar in nature and number to the references in these other articles. So it is strange that an article on Prof. Braun would be declined when these other articles exist. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About your statement "There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert", what about the following in the article for Li Cai (who is in the same field as Henry Braun): "The algorithm was recognized as a mathematically rigorous breakthrough in the "curse of dimensionality" or the following in the Wikpedia article for Alina von Davier (same field): "Von Davier is a researcher, innovator, and an executive leader"? If "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "..innovator, and an executive leader" are acceptable, how is "world-renowned expert" be peacocky? Also, I am in the same field and both "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "innovator" are too much of an exaggeration. The only thing that is true is that both Li Cai and Alina von Davier are big self-promoters. Thus, it seems that you are applying double standards in reviewing articles and declined an article on a humble person while accepting those on self-promoters. I will end with the fact that Henry Braun received a career contributions award in 2023 in the same field as Li Cai and Alina von Davier--so an article on him is definitely eligible in what is claimed to be an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I also see that you editors contradict each other. On the article on Henry Braun, I see that the editor StarryGrandma wrote in April on the article on Henry Braun that the references so far are just fine and yet user4edits etc. think references are not enough. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia: - the issue here isn't the notability (which I don't think anyone has questioned), however the toning of the article and the fact a lot of the article is not supported by citations, or inproperly cited. I'm happy to do some work on rewording some sections if needed, but in the current form it's not really ready for mainspace. Mdann52 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will highly appreciate if you will help with this article on Henry Braun. As I wrote above, I mimicked the format (and sources) of this article from articles on other people in his field (Li Cai, Eric Bradlow, Paul W. Holland), but probably did not succeed entirely. Thanks---you seem to be so much more helpful than editors like user4edit. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 5 sources to support that his name is Henry Braun that is just weird and completely unnecessary. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A common reason of decline is the lack of reliable sources and different editors have different opinions about what is reliable. So I thought I would add a few to increase the chance of acceptance. :-) I will revise it soon to reduce the number. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am preparing a submission on Sandip Sinharay that is in my sandbox. Will you please take a quick Look and let me know if you consider him to pass the criteria of a notable person stated in WP:NPROF? I think Sandip Sinharay does pass because of being an editor of a prestigious journal (and past editor of two other journals) in his field, publisher of books (with well-known publishers) and 100+ articles, and winners of important awards in his field. However, I was talking with a few friends (all of whom want to make our field of psychometrics more visible and are bloggers, authors of articles in journals and encyclopedias like Wikipedia etc.) at a recent conference and heard that articles submitted by them on a few other people and Sandip Sinharay were declined for different reasons (not a notable person, self-promotion etc.). Please feel free to do your own research, like you did for Hal Stern, about his notability (or otherwise). There is a news article about him in a leading Bengali newspaper, showing he is notable in another way (by overcoming a terrible accident to later become somewhat successful in life): https://www.anandabazar.com/west-bengal/sandip-singha-roy-shares-his-experience-of-harassments-when-he-was-a-student-at-kharagpur/cid/1453550, but I did not cite that as a source as the Wikipedia editors will immediately protest that. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Yatharthsrivastava[edit]

Inquiry for decline

Hi

I was told that my article Draft:Sukesha didn't have proper citations, though I had included four citations: three from published books and one from a respected website that has often been cited in wiki articles. I would love to get some feedback on where I can improve.

First source: Amar Chitra Katha, a respectable comic book series that does research accurately on all of its issues on mythology

Second source: Vettam Mani's Puranic Encyclopaedia, a comprehensive work that talks about all mythological figures in Hindu myth.

Third source: Wisdom Library, which is a respectable website that is used by wiki for multiple articles on Hindu mythology

Fourth source: A direct translation of Ramayana, which talks about my character. Yatharthsrivastava (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yatharthsrivastava: it's difficult to tell how much of what you've written is actually supported by the sources, as you haven't cited them inline (which, in fairness, is not absolutely mandatory, but very much the preferred method nevertheless); see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
Also, offline sources must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.
BTW, it seems sources 2 and 3 are actually the same? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the formatting of your post to remove "inquiry for decline" as a redlink, that's where the draft title goes. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020[edit]

Why is there a block on this? It has been cleaned up and now includes the references which prove notability. 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020 (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how you've done that, but if you feel you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer to ask them to reconsider their rejection. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin[edit]

Hello! How can I know of my article about Daniel Druhora is ready to be published? Kamila Fomin (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: if you're asking about Draft:Daniel Druhora (like you did the last time), then please link to that draft, not the one in your sandbox.
I declined this draft a couple of weeks ago. It has been edited since then, but not resubmitted. The way you find out if it's ready for publication is you resubmit it for another review (whenever you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the decline). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 7 June 2024 review of submission by MarkCeline[edit]

hi, i recently edited an article, It got declined and the user who declined stated exact reasons too. The problem is, english is not my first language, therefore I am having trouble understanding the instructions. I can try retyping what the user said. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Please word it in simpler terms and help me. MarkCeline (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkCeline: the decline notice says that the subject is not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you DoubleGrazing MarkCeline (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkCeline It was me who declined the draft. I asked you to go through H:YFA and WP:REFB. Kindly read other articles like Vyapam scam. I would ask you to continue the article. Other users would join for sure. And, we reviewers are not here just to decline. We use to improve the articles appear notable. Keep improving. If you need any help, please ask me. I would be happy to assist. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Twinkle1990. It means a lot. MarkCeline (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For any assistance and improvement of the draft, you are always welcome to my talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You. Here is the edited article link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Neet_Scam_2024 MarkCeline (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Sjoseph2024[edit]

I am an elected State Executive Committee member of the Texas Republican Party, and I would like to create my Wikipedia page with all relevant information. Sjoseph2024 (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sjoseph2024 Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Your draft is wholly unsourced and reads like a resume. A Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Frankly, it would be unusual for a state level party official who does not hold public office to draw the coverage needed to merit an article, but it's not impossible. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any article about you would not be "your Wikipedia page", it would be an article about you, no different than if the New York Times wrote about you. You wouldn't have an exclusive right to edit the article, and cannot keep it on the text that you might prefer it have. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. See WP:PROUD for more information, as well as WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Afternoon, Sjoseph2024. Firstly, can I please make you aware of WP:AUTOBIO, which is our guidelines for such pages. Generally speaking, you should not publish articles on yourself.
Secondly, you would need to meet the criteria at WP:NPOL to show you are notable enough for an article. Candidates for office are generally not notable, so you would need to show you met WP:GNG. From a quick search, I cannot find adaquate sourcing to meet that bar.
Thirdly, the draft is completely unsourced, which is unacceptable under our rules for articles on living people. For good reason, we don't allow people to make claims on here they are the subject and X is true, as editors and our readers have no way of verifying that that person is who they say they are. Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mean 52 I think this user isn't seeking public office(which doesn't meet NPOL anyway), they are a member of the party's executive committee, essentially on the board. They would probably need to meet WP:BIO and for that there would need to be coverage discussing their influence on the party/its candidates/its ideology/etc. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
331dot I don't identify as mean, I hope that isn't a reflection on my comment :)
But thanks for putting what I was trying to say in a more succinct form! Mdann52 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Singhizking[edit]

Hello. My draft has been declined. How do i edit it so that it gets accepted and published as an article. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Singhizking: We don't cite wikis in general (no editorial oversight). The topic of your draft falls into a contentious topic (South Asian social strata and castes). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if i add this contentious topic to my draft will it be accepted Singhizking (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Singhizking: You misread what I wrote; I'll clarify. The draft is in a topic area that is considered problematic - specifically, South Asian castes and similar social strata - and so there will be increased scrutiny on your draft as a result. This does not affect the chance of your draft being accepted, but it does mean you need to be careful about how you go about writing this. As to your draft being accepted, you currently have no usable sources at all; as I said, we do not cite wikis. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please can you give me a usable source. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your job. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject scholarly sources that discuss the surname at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 7 June 2024 review of submission by StephenFlint[edit]

Because, I just wanna make sure it will submitted or not. That's all! StephenFlint (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenFlint: Your only source is a video from the subject's own YouTube channel. Not only is this completely unacceptable, one source by itself - no matter how good it is - cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already just wanna know how good or bad it is. Just remind me! StephenFlint (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad and has been deleted. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah that's right that's never good. StephenFlint (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Abhidiit[edit]

I created a page about myself. It was declined. I have little to no experience of creating wikipedia pages. My page was declined and I can see editor's comments. But I dont know how to fix those issues. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Abhidiit (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or post their resume. Please see the autobiography policy. It is not recommended that you write about yourself at all, though it is not absolutely forbidden. Any article about you must not merely document your accomplishments, it must summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you and how you are a notable academic. Please see Your First Article. You need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 39.34.132.104[edit]

I want to publish the article of Ayaz Sheikh. He is my cousin brother and he is a Pakistani playback singer. Can you help me in publishing or creating his article? I have not made any financial deal with Ayaz Sheikh for this work and Ayaz Sheikh's page is already created administrator on Urdu Wikipedia. Please help and support create English Wikipedia Short Page Ayaz Sheikh. If you have an authority. 39.34.132.104 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You draft has already been deleted as unambiguous advertising, which is not permitted on English Wikiepdia. If there is ever an article about your cousin, it will be a summary of what people unconnected with him have published about him, not what he or his associates wish to say.
Also, if he is your cousin, then you have a conflict of interest, whether you have a financial arrangement of not: this does not prevent you from creating an article about him, but it makes it harder, because you are likely to find it difficult to write in a sufficiently neutral point of view.
What happens on other Wikipedia versions does not concern us here: each version of Wikipedia is a separate project, and has its own rules, policies, and procedures. ColinFine (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 8[edit]

17:54, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 120.56.167.234[edit]

The article User: Fishsicles/sandbox has been made redundant by the publishing of Sodium tetrapropylborate, so i want to cleanup the article as per WP:CLEANUP and make it an redirect to that article. Thanks, 120.56.167.234.

120.56.167.99 (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make any sense. In any case, you've managed to get yourself blocked (for evading an earlier block, it seems), so take a break and find something to do in the real world instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP user seems to have deleted content from today's section, and it cannot be easily restored due to subsequent edits. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Reality180[edit]

The sources of all information in this document are clearly identified. There are many worse articles on wikipedia, but few are more factual than this. This document should be adopted because it was written based on facts confirmed by solid data. Reality180 (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reality180: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. Repeated resubmission without any attempt to improve the draft is disruptive and will eventually result in rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reality180 The presence or content of an article is not compared to that of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer, see other stuff exists. If there are "worse articles", please help us take action on them by identifying them so we are aware of them. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:24, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Minejob[edit]

Why this page got reject please explain me and tell me the reasons so I can make them good in future. Minejob (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Minejob: because there is nothing to suggest you are notable. We don't host personal 'profiles' etc., for that you need to go to the likes of LinkedIn. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects with encyclopaedic merit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:39, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Stephen Ini[edit]

Please are news publications reliable sources to cite on an article about a politician? I really need the help of an experienced wikipedia editor. Stephen Ini (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Ini: some are, some aren't. Fox News (sic) is not considered reliable for political or scientific topics. Daily Mail is not considered reliable for anything, and yet they would probably see themselves as a 'news publication'. RT is also not considered reliable, although whether they even think themselves that they are a 'news publication', I don't know. You can find out more about what we do and don't consider reliable at WP:RS and WP:RSP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help, however, is there a list of news sources reliable for Nigeria, because there are quite a number of News publication platforms in Nigeria that are considered verified and reliable but may not be considered same on wikipedia, I really need a proper guidance to articulate my draft submission in order to get it approved.
I am not a paid editor, I am a new editor learning how to become an experienced contributor for Nigerian informations because I realized there are not many persons interested in publishing Nigerian information for free. Stephen Ini (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen Ini: I'm not aware of anyone maintaining a list of reliable Nigerian sources, although you may want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria where they will no doubt know better. The problem is that even if a particular publication is generally considered reliable, an individual article may still have problems, such as being sponsored content or based on a press release.
The problem with your draft is that most of the content is unreferenced, which is unacceptable in an article on a living person. So even if your sources are reliable (which I can't comment on, as I haven't looked), they're not cited enough to support the draft contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your help, this would help me make improvement in my journey through wikipedia. I will check on the wiki project Nigeria and also make changes to my references and citations with reliable sources for my article. However, I have made some effort in editing my draft and I would appreciate if you help me check out the improvement made so far. Thank You. Stephen Ini (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that each source that you are wanting to use to demonstrate notability must meet three criteria: not just being a reliable source, but also being completely independent of the subject, and containing significant coverage of him.
So if a reliable source publishes an article based on a press release, that will not count; and if it mentions the subject's name in an article, but says little or nothing about him, that will not count. See WP:42 for more. ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Sonu Deka 2010[edit]

How to publish this article? What I have to do to published this article on Wikipedia. Any editing? Sonu Deka 2010 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonu Deka 2010: this draft has been rejected, as it provides no evidence of notability and is effectively unreferenced. It will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I need the reasons why my article is deleted. It had valid source and links. And i'm an independent filmmaker from india. Someone did speedy deletion on my article, which i completely disagree with the action that put upon. Please do check, I'm sure this is wrong. SachiAkhil93 (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your draft Draft:Janam Raj has not been deleted, but it has been rejected, because after three attempts you have not managed to adduce any sources which establish that Raj met Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
In order to establish notability, your draft would need to cite (not just list at the end, but give proper bibliographic information which would allow a reader to find the source and verify the information) several sources each of which was reliably published|, independent of the subject, and contained significant coverage of the subject. Not one of the links you put at the end is independent of Raj.
Absolutely the first question to ask when considering writing a Wikipedia article about somebody, is "Where have people wholly unconnected with the subject chosen to write at some lenght about them, and been published somewhere reliable, such as a major newspaper, or a book from a reputable publisher?"
If the answer is "nowhere", then give up: this person does not meet Wikipedia's definition of "notable".
If there are several such sources, the next step is to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a summary of what those independent sources say.
As for your user page, that is what has been deleted, as containing material unrelated to Wikipedia's purposes. As I am not an admin, I can't look at the deleted page and see what it said. ColinFine (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:30, 8 June 2024 review of submission by SachiAkhil93[edit]

Hi, I need the reasons why my article is deleted. It had valid source and links. And i'm an independent filmmaker from india. Someone did speedy deletion on my article, which i completely disagree with the action that put upon. Please do check, I'm sure this is wrong. SachiAkhil93 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SachiAkhil93: no, it is not wrong. You shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, see WP:AUTOBIO. And when you submit an autobio draft with no evidence of notability, and then resubmit the same again without any improvement on that front, that's when you cross the border into self-promotion. This is why your draft was declined, and subsequently deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad[edit]

Need to delete this draft VineethVaraprasad (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by Deb '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:41, 8 June 2024 review of submission by 109.151.77.86[edit]

HI

Not sure what I am missing - I have looed at other similar aerodromes and they have v few references

please advise 109.151.77.86 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has no references, only some external links.
Per WP:NBUILD, we would need to see significant coverage in multiple sources meeting the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor, many articles on Wikipedia that have only a few references were created when the Wiki was new and the standards were looser. We're always trying to find and improve or remove those old articles, so if you saw any then please feel free to link them here so someone can help clean them up!
Your draft has now been rejected, so this may be the end of the line for it. If you are able to find at least three suitable sources and can incorporate them into the draft (make sure to cite them appropriately!) then you could leave a message on the talk page of the reviewer who rejected the draft, asking them whether they would be willing to look it over again. Keep in mind you should only do this once, so make sure your draft is at a good standard first!
Use the featured articles at WikiProject Architecture for some articles you could base yours on; Featured Articles are considered to be some of our very best, so they're a much better guide than random aerodrome articles. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:02, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad[edit]

what was missing in the article ? VineethVaraprasad (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer...any evidence of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:08, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad[edit]

already many reference added, what can i do to publish this page VineethVaraprasad (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously advised The Times of India is NOT a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:20, 8 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad[edit]

give me advice what was missing VineethVaraprasad (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. You have been advised above. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I am not making an error. Wasn't you that requested the deletion per [3]. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 9[edit]

06:09, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Coldgradir[edit]

How to change my sandbox to Coldgradir when I search Coldgradir Wikipedia on Google Coldgradir (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldgradir: drafts are not indexed by search engines, only published articles are, and this has zero chance of being published in its present state. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:17, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Oliverascool[edit]

why reject me Oliverascool (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oliverascool: because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:08, 9 June 2024 review of submission by MTlegends[edit]

MTlegends(talk). 12:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Draft:Walter Wetzel Sr. @MTlegends: do you have a question about the draft? It is waiting for review. --bonadea contributions talk 12:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bonadea. Yes I am waiting to hear back on its approval. I made an attempt to get a reply back but no one has updated me on it. I added a few more references but wanted to make sure it is going to be reviewed and approved. I have been waiting for months on get this approved.
Any update would be appreciated. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 12:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have ignored the advice that Legacy.com and IMDb are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. There are a few other resources out there on him that can be used in place of these. I will add them. Thank you Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 14:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MTlegends please be patient. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,223 pending submissions waiting for review.
I see that your user page says you're the grandson of the person you're writing about. Please see WP:COI. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. User page info has been updated. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 13:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't? You have removed the details of your relationship to the topic whereas you need to add it! Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did add it with a few other items. Hope it helps. I am new to all of this stuff. Thanks for your patience in advance. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 14:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MTlegends: One thing that delayed the review was the removal of some templates from the draft on 13 May – you deleted the current submission template (which meant that the page was removed from the category of drafts waiting for review), as well as the reviewer comments from earlier submissions. I restored them and the draft has already been reviewed again. If you edit and resubmit, please be careful not to remove any of the templates or comments from earlier reviews. --bonadea contributions talk 14:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 9 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad[edit]

What was missing VineethVaraprasad (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the advice given to you above. Please do not create a new draft every time an old one is rejected. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VineethVaraprasad: and if I can just add, I reported you for self-promotion, but the report went stale before anyone acted on it. I won't hesitate to report again, though, if you continue in this vein, so please stop now. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:21, 9 June 2024 review of submission by VineethVaraprasad[edit]

please review the contact tell me the changes VineethVaraprasad (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VineethVaraprasad: What part of "do not remove rejection templates" do you not understand? The same draft has been rejected four times and will not be considered further. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been declined and rejected multiple times, your sources are NOT reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:36, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Pratik.S2005[edit]

Need advice in publishing the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mira-Bhayander,_Vasai-Virar_Police page... Pratik.S2005 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pratik.S2005, your draft was rejected four months ago. Please read the reviewers' notes, under the big orange/pink box on your draft. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 9 June 2024 review of submission by OkcuhC[edit]

- How to reposition the infobox military person to the top right side of the page ? - How to cite Oman's New York Times 1948 obituary? Should it be in a bibliography? It was a "special to the New York Times" Obit. Have scan of original NYT clipping. It appears in NYT Obit index as: Oman, Charles M. (por) 1948. N 2, 25:5 but can't generate a proper direct link to it. Or is source and date sufficient? - My primary sources were the NYT obituary, and a congruent 1941 Who's Who in America entry - should both be listed? - Oman's 1943 book Doctor's Aweigh is in public domain, and available at https://archive.org/details/doctorsaweigh. Is it appropriate to include it as an External Link? OkcuhC (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:32, 9 June 2024 review of submission by Djy Lectxr 727[edit]

Why was my application declined Djy Lectxr 727 (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the message on your user talk page. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is an autobiography with no citations to support notability of any kind. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 10[edit]

05:25, 10 June 2024 review of submission by Djy Lectxr 727[edit]

What must I do to be approved because it's busy telling me that my entry must be empty or removed Djy Lectxr 727 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1228240477"