Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


October 11

[edit]

07:51, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Gopalpariwar

[edit]

Hello Team, I have submitted a Page but it is declined and Please help me in creating a New Wikipedia Page in Hindi Content Gopalpariwar (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hindi Wikipedia; you need to go to the Hindi Wikipedia to create your draft article. Each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with their own editors and policies. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:11, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Experiential Events by Visual Architects

[edit]

My recent article got rejected, and this is the first time I tried creating a wikipidea article so I am sure it might have missed a few keey points even though I tried my best to follow the guidelines. I seek your help to understand how to averrt this and launch/publish the arrticle Experiential Events by Visual Architects (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Experiential Events
@Experiential Events by Visual Architects: your draft has been deleted as promotional. Promotion of any kind is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Your user name also implies some sort of connection with this subject. Could you let us know what it is? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:49, 11 October 2024 review of submission by 3DmicroPrintExpert

[edit]

My article got rejected and I don't know what to do

I’m reaching out to better understand the reason behind the decline of my article about the company Nanoscribe. In the rejection comment, it was mentioned, "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established."

I previously revised the article based on similar feedback. I added several independent publications, removed press releases, clearly stated when information is from the company itself, and included additional sources demonstrating the company’s relevance in research.

I genuinely believed these revisions would bring the article in line with Wikipedia's neutrality and reliability standards, so I absolutely don't know what further adjustments might be needed.

Could anyone please provide more specific feedback on what remains problematic? 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3DmicroPrintExpert I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended(you thought it was a section header, I think). You already asked the reviewer for advice, I'd suggest waiting to hear from them first, to avoid duplicating effort. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @331dot thanks, I got an answer and the answer is that one sentence in the draft is promotional. But I think the problem is that every time someone else reads it, there may be another sentence that is seen as problematic. So I'm trying to get the big picture and not just change one sentence, resubmit, and get rejected again for another sentence. That's why I asked the question here. 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that different reviewers will see different things, either because they have a different perspective, or because a reviewer doesn't want to front load all the problems at once as it's easier to deal with them one or a few at a time. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell you that the awards are meaningless towards establishing notability; an award only contributes to notability if the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). The Technology section has little discussion of the company and should just be removed. If you do both those things, that leaves little behind that summarizes what independent reliable sources see as notable about this company as Wikipedia defines it . 331dot (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @331dot, thanks for the advice! I thought it was important to use the technology section because they were the first company to make 2PP available as a commercial tool and they invented the 2GL technology. Do you think it would be a better way to remove that and maybe add the first point to the history of 2PP/multiphoton lithography and write a second article about the 2GL technology where it's also well explained and defined? Maybe this would be a good start because I think it will be easier for me to write a technology article. I see I'm still learning the rules here. 3DmicroPrintExpert (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That the company invented and made available a technology would merit the technology an article, but not necessarily the company. For the company to merit an article there needs to be sources with significant discussion of the company itself, not its products and inventions. 331dot (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:34, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Cuentaderevision

[edit]

Please, could you tell me what else can I do? The WP Three are ok. There are references from The Times, BBC, NYT, Financial Times, CCN, El País, Washington Post... Triana was awarded with the Grand Cross Royal Order Civil Merit (it is a international top recognition), Triana is in charge of the reconstruction of one of the biggest natural disasters of this century... Cuentaderevision (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:19, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Wikisickidiki

[edit]

where do I put my article to review? Wikisickidiki (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikisickidiki press the blue Sumit draft for review button at the bottom of the box, but your article will most likely be instantly declined in its current state — Karnataka 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about notability and reliable sources before you do anything else. Unless you have at least three sources, each of which meets all three of the criteria in WP:42, your draft will not establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you will be wasting your time in writing an article, and wasting somebody else's time in submitting it for review.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Sayuru Athsara

[edit]

Hello, I have created a Wikipedia page for the accredited European School of Lille Métropole in Lille (Marcq-en-Baroeul) France. My request for submission was declined stating that I have not cited enough sources. My point is, the school only opened up in 2019 and is still in a gradual development schedule (to be completed in mid-2025). Therefore, evidently, the school lacks a vast amount of sources (especially in English) to be cited. I'd like to know what the procedure would be in such a specific circumstance. Furthermore, I'd like to state that the most important information about the school is already cited with reliable sources, including the website of the school itself; the Office of the Secretary-General of the European Schools (the over-seeing body of the school); reliable European Union document archives; regional newspaper La Voix du Nord; and as well the website of the Lille European Métropolis (Métropole Européenne de Lille). Rest assured, I'll try my best to find more sources to cite. In the meantime, I would be more than glad to know what I could do in such a specific instance. Thank You in advance. Sayuru Athsara (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sayuru Athsara: The school's own website is not considered a reliable source; government sources are not considered secondary. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject secondary (news/scholarly/review) sources that discuss the subject at length and are subject to fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sayuru Athsara your sources do not have to be English, but they must fit the criteria listed in Wikipedia:GNG. The information found at Wikipedia:NSCHOOL will explain this further. — Karnataka 18:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:13, 11 October 2024 review of submission by Amman24

[edit]

Good day,

an ambassador is the highest official representative of a head of state in another country and can only be appointed with the approval of the head of state of the receiving country. In this case, there is a clear reference to the official website of the King of Jordan, receiving the person of this article as the new ambassador and highest diplomatic representative of his country/state. There is no higher authority than the head of state himself confirming the ambassador (other than God), so what reference is a minimum criteria for Wiki then? The appointment of the ambassador is also referenced and confirmed by 3 of the leading news agencies in the Kingdom of Jordan, also linked to this article. And there seems to be no difference between this ambassador and all the other ambassador’s of the Order of Malta on Wikipedia. Also, the references clearly link to official government websites. Taken bio information about a top-diplomat from the official website of an embassy is “biased” in Wiki’s opinion? Where else would you get information about an official’s personal bio, like the Secretary of State, other than from the CV he had written himself and being published on a website?

Thank you for your help. George Amman24 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amman24: Ambassadors are not inherently notable as we define the term. You need to find third-party sources with editorial oversight that explicitly discuss him and his work in some depth. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought it was noteworthy since the ambassador is the youngest ever head of a diplomatic mission of the Order of Malta, which usually only appoints 60+ years billionaires. But you are probably right, Wiki is not the right place for this kind of information. I suggest you have the article deleted. Thank you for your time! Amman24 (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:30, 11 October 2024 review of submission by DMmmAM12345

[edit]

Submission shows declined for lack of sufficient citations, but citations are prevalent. DMmmAM12345 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DMmmAM12345: Every claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or (failing that) removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

[edit]

13:37, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Aknotik

[edit]

Hello,

I'm trying to create a page of my mother, which was very known in music person in Latvia. The source of the page is from various interviewers of Larisa Puzule. Its not clear how do I add secondary sources. They are mostly on Russian on Latvian languages. And in any case, only a few facts can be checked and approved by secondary sources. Should I just add links which I can found in the Internet?

Thanks Aknotik (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be in English, as long as they meet all other requirements of being independent reliable sources. As you're unlikely to find a reviewer fluent in Latvian here, you may wish to, on the draft talk page, discuss what each source you provide says.
You should formally declare your conflict of interest, see WP:COI for instructions. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 12 October 2024 review of submission by 2A02:C7C:E24E:2B00:5E1:82CE:DB3:5DAF

[edit]

Improve the site please + How will you be able to accept the website? 2A02:C7C:E24E:2B00:5E1:82CE:DB3:5DAF (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection typically means that reviewers don't think improvement is possible, which is why it won't be considered again. You provided no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that discuss what makes this notable(such as reviews by professional reviewers); you just documented the existence of the series. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:54, 12 October 2024 review of submission by AlexCollins4u

[edit]

Hello. I was instructed to 'ask for advice' by SafariScribe. The subject meets the academic criteria specified and reliable sources were provided. Can you kindly unreject it? Thank you. Regards AlexCollins4u (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexCollins4u What they have to do is to pass WP:NPROF. The referencing is not helped by the WP:CITEKILL which follows "He is a biology and biotechnology researcher with several collaborations and publications to his credit", which hinders reviewers from knowing what references you really choose. Please reduce them to a maximum of three good ones
I think there is a probability that they pass NPROF, though I have not looked in depth. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help. I will do as you suggested by reducing the many citations to the last sentence. Can you unreject it afterwards? Thank you AlexCollins4u (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexCollins4u Message me on my user talk page and I will take a detailed look. I make no promises, but you will get my full attention whatever the outcome. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've messaged you. Cheers AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlexCollins4u Thank you. I do not feel that the rejection should stand, so I resubmitted it on your behalf, but no Declined the draft for the reasons stated in some detail. You are welcome to ask for help from other reviewers once you understand the review, and if you disagree with me. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the review. Many thanks for cancelling the rejection and resubmitting it on my behalf. Cheers. AlexCollins4u (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Focus.enterprise

[edit]

My submission is constantly being rejected for so called being "AI generated" despite it all being original work, what do I do? Focus.enterprise (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With at least 8 unsourced sections there is zero chance of acceptance, where did all the content come from? Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear, did you send it through ChatGPT or any similar program for any reason? Even if you only intended to have it soundGi more polished and more like a Wikipedia article, the way large language models work gives their output a very distinctive pattern and means it's likely to be flagged as AI generated. Very few people write the way ChatGPT and its fellows do!
More importantly, though, make sure you have your information referenced - the wording of the article can be adjusted if necessary, but words don't matter if you don't have sources to back them up. Have a look at WP:YFA, WP:42, and WP:REFB - they should get you on the right track. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how long the article is and how many specific facts are claimed, I'd expect to see more than an order of magnitude more sources rather than...four, and I'd argue that three of the four sources aren't both reliable and independent of the subject. In the first paragraph of Background alone, nothing is referenced, and I stopped counting halfway through at a dozen factual claims that needed to be sourced. And yes, without any AI detection, there are some hallmarks here. The whole section on "Lyrical Themes" looks a lot like an AI readout that was not properly copied-and-pasted from the website, because the section headers that AI loves to create smush right into the text. For example "Humor and Bravado Despite the serious themes, Eazy-E's characteristic humor and bravado permeate the album" and "Discontent and Personal Struggles Eazy-E's frustrations with the music industry and his personal life are also prominent themes throughout the album." Yes, sourcing everything is a lot of work, but that's why quality articles of this length can take years and the efforts of myriad editors to get right. Your best bet is to start with the good sources you can find and then cut everything way down to the article that those sources can support. There's no deadline here and the article can -- and likely will be -- expanded later as more people find more sources that support different characteristics and history of the album. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that, like many new editors who attempt to create a new article before they have spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written it BACKWARDS.
First, find several sources which meet all three requirements of being reliably published, wholly unconnected with the subject of the article, and contain significant coverage of the subject - see golden rule for more detail.
Then if you have found at least three such sources, write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Do not include a single word for which you haven't got a reliable published source (and, while Wikipedia doesn't require that every piece of information be cited to a source, since you have a source, why not cite it?). If you haven't found at least three such sources, give up and do something else, as no article will be accepted. ColinFine (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:43, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Lief Vespucci

[edit]

I am a PhD historian that has written numerous encyclopedia articles, hence I am baffled by this rejection. I have two questions, should I add a footnote to every sentence of this article (all information has been published and is publicly available, no statement or sentence in this article is without corroboration from an available and cited source). Second, regarding the "peacock language," does this refer to standard Financial Times level prose, or is the idea that we used too many honorifics to refer to Gower? If the latter, please point out one so we can correct it, if it is the former, isn't standard Financial Times and New York Times prose OK for Wikipedia? With many thanks! Lief Vespucci (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lief Vespucci Accepted You do yourself no favours in your "Do you know who I am" toned introduction here. Wikiedia is not kind to experts, I'm afraid. See WP:ACADEME. Nonetheless I view this article as standing a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, this differs from Tavantius. Such disagreement is perfectly acceptable.
The tone is a little magazine-like. Doubtless the community will edit that away.
As for references, 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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:27, 12 October 2024 review of submission by Wiklipeds

[edit]

Hello. Please help me understand what I'm doing wrong. I just copied what was stated on the Nigerian Intelligence (DSS) website about an award their president/chief/other received by ISO-SEC Switzerland. But I removed the comment they did, as it probably can make it look "how great it is" and this can be considered as an advertisement. Not sure if there is something else. Please help me to understand what to avoid. I have plenty of time and I can truly be a good editor soonest I learn what to NOT do. Thank you in advance. Wiklipeds (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiklipeds. The sources in your draft do not provide significant coverage of ISO-SEC. They are passing mentions and are not sufficient to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

[edit]

00:08, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Canute Saint

[edit]

Hi, My submission Draft:House of Torgar has been declined twice. The reasons for the first rejection were comprehensible, and in response, I added a considerable amount of inline references. The reasons for the second rejection were, however, general and intangible: 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.' Nonetheless, many pairs of eyes see better than one pair, so I hereby ask for advice as to improving the article further. Thank you. Canute Saint (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:56, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Bz public

[edit]

Hello, I have created this article with the help of reliable sources, if necessary, please improve it and I request you to publish it. Bz public (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bz public, what's required are references to significant coverage of Norz in reliable independent sources. Pitchfork and the Los Angeles Times and BBC Persian Television provide significant coverage of his client Googoosh, but only passing mentions of Norz. His own website is not independent and of no value in establishing notability. Unreferenced promotional content like Shahram Norz’s passion for music was evident from a young age violates the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. In conclusion, your draft fails to establish that Norz is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 13 October 2024 review of submission by 211.224.23.251

[edit]

Hello, I am currently a student at Gimcheon High School in South Korea. I would like to upload information about our school to Wikipedia. However, I am asking you because it was rejected for various reasons, and I modified it based on this, but did not follow the purpose of Wikipedia. Can you tell me what is the problem? 211.224.23.251 (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your school does not meet the definition of a notable organization that we have here. Schools do not merit articles just because they exist, and Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the school.
The Korean Wikipedia is different from this one, with its own editors and policies. If this draft would be acceptable there, you should write it there. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Asdf;jldsafdl

[edit]

I need some help with the sources, what references do I have that are necessary and aren't, I need some reliable, I just need help in general on how to improve this draft, if you can assist that would be amazing, please and thank you! Hectorvector27 17:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asdf;jldsafdl. Unfortunately Geni, FindAGrave, and Ancestry are generally considered unreliable sources. See links for reasons why. miraheze.org cannot be used as it's editable by anyone. chateauversailles doesn't mention her.
Is she discussed in literature, journals, academic work, history books? Those sources would work better. Qcne (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh my golly gosh, thank you! Hectorvector27 17:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne, are the references I have now reliable? Hectorvector27 17:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you've removed the unreliable sources, but now most of the draft is unsourced (unless you haven't published your most recent changes?). Readers need to be able to verify her date of birth, early life, death, etc.
The Literary Life and Correspondence of the Countess of Blessington doesn't seem to be significant coverage, just a mention. Usually we look for three solid sources that meet our golden rule: independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage.
Being a Countess she must would hopefully appear in books or journals from historians? Qcne (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I added some more references, I'm not quite done yet though. Hectorvector27 18:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Asdf;jldsafdl

[edit]

Should I submit this or add more references? Hectorvector27 20:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:31:33, 13 October 2024 review of submission by Antitransphobe

[edit]

Hi, I am a new Wikipedia editor. I would like to know whether the stub I wrote is good enough to be reviewed, especially as it is the first time I am ever creating an article from scratch. Antitransphobe (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antitransphobe: I should warn you that this falls into a contentious topic where special rules and stricter enforcement applies (gender- and sexuality-based controversies, including LGBTQIA+ matters). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't knew about it. If I understand the page correctly, does it mean that should I be more careful when editing such articles and take more attention to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines as the yellow box on page says it? Antitransphobe (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antitransphobe: Correct. It's also a very bad idea to cut one's teeth in a contentious topic area, since that designation won't even be considered unless there's been an extensive history of incivility, aggressive partisan editing, and edit-warring that a new editor should not be expected to have to deal with. I'd take Colin's advice below and maybe edit in a somewhat related topic area that isn't in the contentious topic (UK politics/culture, at a glance?). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this work has been done by more experienced Wikipedians, so that I see what things I have done wrong. I'll try to gain more experience, because I'm not that good at creating even stubs. Antitransphobe (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 13 October 2024 review of submission by TaleOfHeroes

[edit]

The article was declined for notability issues; however, there are other professors listed at the University of Illinois that were accepted with sparser content:

- Yuguo Chen

- Dirk Eddelbuettel

- Bo Li (statistician)

What would be the correct way to address notability concern? TaleOfHeroes (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TaleOfHeroes Please see other stuff exists. That another article exists does not mean that it was "accepted" by anyone. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, this cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. This is why each article or draft is judged on their own merits. Please see WP:NACADEMIC, you need to show he meets at least one of the criteria. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When linking to another Wikipedia article or page, the whole url is unnecessary. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

[edit]

02:11, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Asdf;jldsafdl

[edit]

Should I submit. Hectorvector27 02:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft makes no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 14 October 2024 review of submission by 106.79.199.9

[edit]

Help me in writing this article 106.79.199.9 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. This isn't the place to ask for co-editors. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 14 October 2024 review of submission by MezcalRoots

[edit]

I need help on exactly what I need to change in order for my article not to sound like an essay and I guess better sources. MezcalRoots (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geni.com. Wiki Tree and blogspot are not reliable sources and should be replaced. Theroadislong (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MezcalRoots You have written this WP:BACKWARDS. Pease start afresh by finding excellent sources. If you can't find them do not continue, for he is not notable. If you can, in your own words write what they say.
You have written a magazine article. It's interesting, but requires correct citations. Your finished version will be flat, neutral, factual, please 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:41, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Vermadesh

[edit]

Im very new to writing wikipedia pages can you please help me publish my wikipedia article. I do not understand how to correct the suggestions you made. Vermadesh (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermadesh Assuming you to be the person in the article your background suggests that you have all the skill required to do this yourself. You are the one who wants the article to be accepted. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:51, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Raevinlarue

[edit]

Hello, I would like to know the status of my latest submission. It has been a month, and I have not heard back about the Wiki page. Could someone please let me know what is happening? Thank you so much for your help. Raevinlarue (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raevinlarue Certainly. It is in the pool of drafts awaiting review. Thins not a queue, but a pool. Feel free to continue to improve it while awaiting review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for letting me know :) Raevinlarue (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:55, 14 October 2024 review of submission by KC Alunan

[edit]

I don't understand how much else I could expand on this topic. This topic was very important in a national level in the Philippines, and lasted a month. However, there is not a lot of digital references I can give, only physical references, which are shown in the draft itself. In summary, I just want to know how I can make this better, and what I can do if there is not a lot of virtual evidence. KC Alunan (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KC Alunan Please do not incorporate scans of press clippings. Instead please use the template {{cite news}} with parameters filled out correctly. We do not need digital references. We just need references that verify the facts and show the notability you have asserted in your message 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on Timtrent's comments on newspaper clippings, we can't link to or cite clippings for copyright reasons; any such links can and will be summarily removed without comment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do news articles from over 70 years count as copyright, or is it still copyrighted? KC Alunan (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on where it's from, and if something happened in the interim that screwed with copyright terms. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, Timtrent's news citation can be taken into account, and if it has nothing to do with copyright, I just want to add one picture of a newspaper article, as it is useful towards understanding the page itself. KC Alunan (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KC Alunan: Not to a reviewer. Images do not help a draft as a rule; it has to stand based on its text and its citations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in summary, there is no need for pictures and images, but I can put them if they do not break any copyright laws? KC Alunan (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In summary, even if the image was free of copyright issues, it would not help the draft in any measurable way, and every second you spend arguing for it is a second that could be spent properly citing the newspaper article it depicts. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, if it was citing the article, then I have done that a few minutes ago. The Article is just some pictures of the plane after it crashed and its flight plan into the mountain. KC Alunan (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then those can wait until (if) the article is approved and moved into mainspace. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh alright, thanks for the advice. KC Alunan (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Asdf;jldsafdl

[edit]

what can I add to make this notable? Hectorvector27 17:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asdf;jldsafdl It is perfectly possible that Corisande de Gramont is devoid of notability in a Wikipedia sense. Look for references, ones that pass WP:42. They need not be online (though those are easier to check for). If the subject is not notable then it is time to Gove up. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's time to give up. Hectorvector27 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Roseamore

[edit]

Hello Helpdesk, I this is my first time trying to post to Wikipedia. I have been declined two times and I cannot figure out why. Please point out the specific areas where I have fallen short. I initially thought that it was because I had not broken down my submission into sections. I did that but it was still declined. Roseamore (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roseamore: The issue wasn't the lack of sections, the issue is that the draft as a whole reads as a research essay. We do not accept original research; we merely summarise what existing sources on a given topic explicitly say about it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your response.
My dilemma is that it is a research essay for a course I am doing. In addition to submitting the essay to the lecturer we were required to upload it to Wikipedia. I would alter it but then it would not met the requirements which she gave. I reached out to her and I am currently waiting to hear from her with regards to if the two (essay and Wikipedia submission) need to be the same or if I can alter the submission to suit.
Thank you again for your response. Roseamore (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your lecturer is to be frank, being very unfair to you by requiring you to create a Wikipedia article, which has put you in an impossible position as you have run up against our policies. They may wish to review the Wikipedia Education Program materials to better incorporate Wikipedia into their lessons. Wikipedia is not a place to post original research. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 331dot,
Thank you for your response, unfortunately I think you are right. I still have not gotten a response back from her so I went ahead and altered the submission to be more in tune with Wikipedia guidelines. Roseamore (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roseamore: Your lecturer has no idea how Wikipedia works, then, which suggests they aren't coordinating with WikiEd (which as a rule considers any "published article" requirement to be a catch-22 for the students, let alone one that would also violate our policies). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and for alerting me to the existence of WikiEd. I am doubtful that the lecturer is aware of this. If given the opportunity, I will make mention of it to her. I contacted her but she has not yet responded so I went ahead and altered my Wikipedia submission. I am hoping to make more progress in the process this time around. Roseamore (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:33, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Sackpat19

[edit]

I would like to create a link to my Lee Crystal article in the "personnel" sections of the four albums Lee worked on with the band. Will this be done automatically or will I be able to edit the album pages? Sackpat19 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is to ask about drafts in the submission process. You may want to try the general Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:13, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Rechtman

[edit]

The reviewer "wrote"*: 

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

The sources cited check all the boxes in terms of being: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

However, somehow we did not find the same to the the case.

  • N.B. The reviewer notice is clearly a template, so you need to provide more details in order to substantiate *your* opinion that the article's references are none of these things.


ACTION REQUESTED Please provide 2-3 examples of references that are not in line with being reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth. Please be as specific as possible because the generic language - while impressive in its style - is poor on substance.

Thank you. Rechtman (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Wikipedia accounts are strictly single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:17, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Rechtman

[edit]

The reviewer "wrote"*: 

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), reliable, secondary, independent of the subject. Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia."

So we checked. And what we conclude now is that the sources cited check all the boxes in terms of being: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

However, somehow we did not find the same to the the case.

  • N.B. The reviewer notice is clearly a template, so you need to provide more details in order to substantiate *your* opinion that the article's references are none of these things.

ACTION REQUESTED Please provide 2-3 examples of references that are not in line with being reliable, independent, secondary, and in-depth. Please be as specific as possible because the generic language - while impressive in its style - is poor on substance.

Thank you. Rechtman (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Safariscribe ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rechtman: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):
You're coming at this from the entirely wrong direction, writing as if for a history book or newsletter as opposed to a Wikipedia article, which must be based on what sources explicitly say about a subject. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:17, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Wisdomledge

[edit]

Dear All, I added a reference section to include sources that demonstrate notability, but I couldn't see it reflected in the submission, and I was unable to resubmit my entry. Please advise. Thanks so much! Wisdomledge (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wisdomledge: I'm not at all sure that the sources in this draft demonstrate notability. In any case, they are very unclear, not correctly structured, and not cited anywhere. Please see WP:REFB for advice on correct referencing. And don't bother even trying to cite sources such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Amazon AWS, etc., as these are user-generated and not considered reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, didn't realise this was already answered, below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:24, 14 October 2024 review of submission by Wisdomledge

[edit]


I added a reference section to include sources that demonstrate notability, but I couldn't see it reflected in the submission, and I was unable to resubmit my entry. Wisdomledge (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried reading Help:Referencing for beginners? You can resubmit the draft after you address the decline reasons by pressing the blue "Resubmit" button in the decline template. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 15

[edit]

08:59, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Anastasia (Nastia)

[edit]

Hi everyone, could you please let me know why this draft was declined?

I removed anything that is remotely promotional and added several independent and reliable sources that mention OnePageCRM. Forbes and Forbes Advisor covered OnePageCRM as well as The Irish Independent, The Times, Local Enterprise Ireland Office, and also TechCrunch.

Some of them are globally known (Forbes and TechCrunch). Others are well known and established in Ireland, like Chambers Ireland, the federation of chambers of commerce for the Republic of Ireland, that officially endorsed OnePageCRM on their website.

Pipedrive has a similar number of references - Pipedrive

Another Wiki article has no reputable references but is still published - Really Simple Systems

Could you please let me know how I can improve the draft to get it published? I'd appreciate your feedback. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastasia (Nastia): the reviewer declined this because of insufficient evidence of notability.
Forbes and TechCrunch aren't quite the strong sources you seem to think; see WP:FORBESCON and WP:TECHCRUNCH, respectively. Sources such as Local Enterprise Ireland and chambers of commerce are primary, and do not contribute towards notability.
It's also not sufficient for a source to mention the subject, we need to see significant coverage, and more specifically, coverage that is entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anastasia (Nastia) When linking to another article or page on Wikipedia, the whole url is unnecessary. Simply place the title of the target page in double brackets(like [[Article title]]).
You declared you were an employee in an edit summary; you should do this on your user page as well.
Please see other stuff exists. There are many ways inappropriate articles can get past us, that an article exists does not mean that it was approved by anyone, or that standards have not changed since it was(if it was). This is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can, so things get past us. We can only address what we know about. This cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, this is why each article or draft is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have indeed received community vetting. I've marked the articles you pointed out as problematic, thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @331dot and @DoubleGrazing for your quick responses and help.
I didn't know that articles can be published without approval, so will refer to the link provided to edit my draft. I declared that I was an employee on the Draft's Talk page too but will do this on my User page as well.
@DoubleGrazing- thanks for sharing the links to Forbes and TechCrunch. I'll have a look at what generally reliable sources have covered OnePageCRM and will add new references before re-submitting the draft. Anastasia (Nastia) (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:14, 15 October 2024 review of submission by CadenSilva

[edit]

Why is my sources not reliable? I keep getting this: "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."

How can I make my sources more reliable so that my article gets approved?

Someone please help, many of my sources are credible. CadenSilva (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CadenSilva I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended.
Your draft is improperly formatted; please see Referencing for beginners. The draft is also written as an essay, and not an encyclopedia article that summarizes what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the topic.
If you are associated with this fund, please declare that, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:28, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Jenmchole

[edit]

Hi -- I have been working on a submission about BlackSky for a few months now and haven't been able to figure out how to change it so it will be accepted. This is my first attempt at writing an article, but like the first editor of this article, I noted that the text about BlackSky in the Spaceflight Industries article is out of date and that there was a proposal on the talk page of that article for an article about BlackSky. I have done some writing work in the past in the satellite space (mostly about Maxar) so tried to fill this gap. I have used the same kinds of sources from comparable articles (Maxar, Planet, AirBus, etc) so I'm not sure why those articles work but this one does not?? Please help! I'm happy for this to be edited in any way (shortened or changed) but it seems like if comic book characters get a wiki entry then a company that can watch the world from space should at least have a mention!! Thanks so much for any help!! Jenmchole (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to this company?
As reviewers noted, the draft just summarizes the routine activities of the company and its offerings, not significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources thqt shows how it is a notable company. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not employed by this company but have done freelance writing/editing about multiple companies in this sector.
Is the text currently under the heading "Satellites" not notable? They built and launched satellites into space. I'm having trouble understanding what notable means?? I looked at the published Stardew Valley article and it's notable references (The Stardew Valley Developer Blog or Nintendo Life) and its not clear why NASA, Forbes and SpaceNews don't work as independent, reliable sources? I'm not tied to any of this info being included, I'm happy to adjust -- it just feels very unclear when comparing to the other articles I've edited or read what's missing from this one. Thanks very much. Jenmchole (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jenmchole Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits.
So, to be clear, you are not freelancing about this company? If you have freelanced for their competitors, it could still be a conflict of interest you need to disclose. If not, okay.
The "satellites" section just documents their routine business activities(building/launching satellites). It doesn't say what is important/significant/influential about this company doing so- what makes them a notable company as Wikipedia defines it. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:43, 15 October 2024 review of submission by SweLiving

[edit]

Clarification on Source Reliability Hi, my article was declined: Draft:Per Olsson (photographer) The reason given was "not adequately supported by reliable sources."

I’m not sure which of the sources I used are considered unreliable. Could it be due to the fact that "Fotografisk Tidsskrift" is cited with a URL from sfoto.se, or is mynewsdesk not an adequate source?

Additionally, I have these other sources I could use for the article:

- [Magasinet Tryck](https://issuu.com/magasinettryck/docs/magasinet-tryck-nr-4)

- [Racestripe Magazine](https://se.readly.com/magazines/racestripe-magazine-readly-exclusive/2023-12-27?srsltid=AfmBOooADLP6XEf_2WpEtTOpShoEDRC94wkEkVvEFEkxw7o4NwJmfCPN)

Do these seem more reliable? Any thoughts on how I can improve the sources or references for this draft would be appreciated! SweLiving (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweLiving: almost all the citations are to the first source, which is an interview of him. People can, and do, say what they want in an interview. These sources also do not establish notability, which would have been another reason to decline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SweLiving I fixed your post so the link to your draft is in the correct place, I think you thought it was a section header. Also, the whole url is unnecessary when linking to a Wikipedia page. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SweLiving: "not adequately supported by reliable sources" is generally used when the subject is a living person and there are unsourced claims in the article. Literally everything that could be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that explicitly corroborates it; interviews are not third-party. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by HYTEN CREW

[edit]

A new page SNEAKO has gotten through the cracks and it is worse than the draft. I think the draft article qualifies to be an article since he has been the dedicated subject of an article from a major accredited newspaper and has been mentioned countless times in more tabloid journalism (which is par for the course for these influencer types). HYTEN CREW (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HYTEN CREW: Thanks for letting us know about the article. I'm going to see if it's salvageable in any form before sending it to a deletion debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW: As to this draft, it has the exact same problem as the existing article, sourcing aside - it's an article on a living person known for being a gadfly for shock value, which makes sourcing next to impossible. All I really found online was clickbait (mainly from Sportskeeda). The sourcing you have in the article does not help a whit, as you rely a lot on sources that either are from him or don't even mention him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I'd like to say it's not my article, I haven't contributed to it at all, and I really couldn't care less if it lives or dies. I'm just bringing it up for discussion in light of the duplicate article's creation so any tomfoolery can be nipped in the bud.
Second, is the problem lack of notability or lack of sources? There's the source from the Jerusalem Post and a simple search on the google has articles from SPLC and others.
Third, the subject is an influencer and runs in the cirlce of the manosphere with the Andrew Tate's and the Nick Fuentes's. I think it's important to document hatred so that an audience can identify these bad actors and hold them accountable. HYTEN CREW (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW: With all due respect, that goal is not shared by Wikipedia. Information is not the sort of weapon you imagine it is for this purpose; a Wikipedia article could just as easily find him potential new fans. Second, I view the issue as both dodgy sources (chaff choking out the wheat) and being notable only for being a manosphere Socrates (though the AfD has turned up four good sources to use, two of which you already cite). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW We record only that whcih is said in reliable secondary sources. Wikip4dia documents nothing unless it is already recorded 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Toblerone101

[edit]

What do I need to add Toblerone101 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toblerone101 A rejected draft cannot proceed further unless you can liaise with the rejecting editor to lift the rejection. It may be a matter of WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toblerone101 To be clear, I am not the rejecting reviewer. Petitioning me on my user talk page serves no purpose. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:47, 15 October 2024 review of submission by Natan Consigli

[edit]

I need help to make this article more neutral and formal of tone. I tried a few times but seem not to understand how to do it well. Help is much appreciated. Thanks! Natan Consigli (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Natan Consigli, some things that stand out:
- "recognized for his use of fire in creating artwork" < recognised by whom?
- "played a role in shaping his later explorations in visual arts, providing him with a foundation in imagery and composition that would.." < simplify this to something like "his career in advertising and graphic design influenced his compositional style and artistic development"
- "he produces vibrant, textured works" < who says they are vibrant and textured?
- "become emblematic of his style and has garnered widespread recognition" < says who?
- The entire "Legacy and Impact" section can be removed, as it is unencyclopedic. Qcne (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/
Hello (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natan Consigli (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "recognized for his use of fire in creating artwork"
Added reference here https://www.jamesmagazine.it/art/le-opere-enrico-dico-milano/ -> With recognition also by Vittorio Sgarbi (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vittorio_Sgarbi)
and here https://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cultura/dic-combustioni-pop-art-italiana-1446182.html
I attempted a correction on the rest of the sections
Thanks you for your answer. Let me know if there's something else I can improve Natan Consigli (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 15 October 2024 review of submission by LegacyMediahse

[edit]

I don't understand why Theroadislong rejected my post LegacyMediahse (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your draft twice because it is unsourced and promotional with zero indication of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:04, 15 October 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:3177:B010:D2A9:8B9C:22AC:B7F2

[edit]

Were almost into 2025 and I felt like this is the Time 2600:1700:3177:B010:D2A9:8B9C:22AC:B7F2 (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's far WP:TOOSOON. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 16

[edit]

02:34, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Eddie.AMDBI

[edit]

My wiki page was deemed: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

The company is the first local Malaysian multi level company self made company from 1992, that is similar to Amway (a global MLM brand). But this company has been around for 3 decades. why is it not notable for inclusion? Eddie.AMDBI (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kinda sounds like you never read the reviewer comments. Please take a look before coming back here. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:19, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Wikiwookie543

[edit]

I don't really understand why my article was declined for not being neutral. I have just stated the facts. Can you explain? I also want to change my title to the long form of the organization (American Muslim & Multifaith Women’s Empowerment Council (AMMWEC)), not just AMMWEC. How do I do this? Wikiwookie543 (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwookie543: this draft just tells us what the organisation does, by quoting or regurgitating content from their website, press releases, etc., which inevitably gives it a corporate jargony feel. In any case, we're not interested in that, we want to hear what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about them, and what makes them worthy of note. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you for that feedback. I have removed all press releases, and only kept the references to the website that I thought were absolutely necessary (their mission in their own words, their leaders). Please let me know if this works for you and your team. Wikiwookie543 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Renaming is done by moving the draft to a new title. However, you don't need to worry about it at this stage; if/when this draft is accepted, it will be moved to a new name anyway. I've made a note of your preferred title in the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Wikiwookie543  Not done, technical issue. (Per below error message)
You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reasons:
The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.
If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.
The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.
If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:04, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Sateesh584

[edit]

how to add my village in wikipedia Sateesh584 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sateesh584 You only provide one source, a YouTube video. YouTube is not an acceptable source unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. An article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. See Referencing for beginners as well. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Jn.mdel

[edit]

The original reviewer @TheLonelyPather declined the first draft for review in May 2024 - stating "contrary to purposes of wikipedia" and reasoned that "we already have Polarisation (waves)" article. Immediately then it was pointed out to reviewer that "Polarisation (waves)" article does not even talk of E and B modes of polarisation (infact even till today that article has nothing to do with it) - and so thereafter in response the reviewer took a stance - "Oh it seems from your references that this is about Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation - so add / update this there". In response again I pointed out that E and B modes is not only relevant for CMB but to other cosmic background radiations also - infact for gravitational waves too - and this had already been written in my original submission comments also (which no one read/ignored) that - "Adding article to explain E and B modes - especially relevant to CMB and gravitational waves study" - but still to no avail. Now after a gap, I again made the efforts to update the draft with as much information as possible - infact clarifying / adding as many references as were being asked of me daily by some of the original discussion participants - but despite my multiple messages even to the original reviewer to review and realise/accept the mistake as a genuine "good-faith" oversight and now make amends to remove the original decline, the original reviewer instead is just choosing to remain silent till date - it has been 10 days of multiple messages - no response / no communication. I fail to understand how some who have been given certain privileges on wikipedia - which are only meant for rendering service to wikipedia and its contributors (and not as a perk to sit on high throne) - how can someone ignore a contributor - especially when I have been consistently reiterating the original draft submission and adding more and more and more as an individual. Faulting a content can be understandable and discussed to resolve - but just because the reviewer does not wish to admit a mistake - that cannot be the reason for all the work to go down the drain. Hence, I write now to HELPDESK that this original incorrect decline may kindly be reviewed for revert - do a review of the content and then decide - because i know after all this groundwork that E and B modes is not explained on Wikipedia till now - and that has been my only humble submission from day one. Jn.mdel (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first step is to appeal to the reviewer directly to ask them to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely wish you could have first read the above before suggesting "1st step".
Anyways see the original discussions in 1st step at : User talk:Jn.mdel#Your submission at Articles for creation: Polarization E and B modes (May 7)
See the 2nd attempt of 1st step at : [1]
And now see the 3rd attempt of the 1st step at : User talk:Jn.mdel#Concern regarding Draft:Polarization E and B modes
Maybe now you can appreciate the reasons for approaching helpdesk. Jn.mdel (talk) 10:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jn.mdel: if I understand correctly, you are asking us to revert the rejection of this draft. There is no need for this; your account is autoconfirmed, therefore you can publish the draft yourself, if you are determined to do so against the views of the three editors (two of whom are new page reviewers) with whom you have discussed this matter extensively on your talk page. New page patrol will then assess the article instead of us here at AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Nonoj36

[edit]

how can i improve my references? i need help Nonoj36 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need references that give this man significant coverage, that don't just document his activities, sources that discuss what makes him a notable person. Do sources write about unique business strategies he has created and others emulate? Any other particular influence in his field? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:54, 16 October 2024 review of submission by The Politicians Page

[edit]

It's been frequently declining The Politicians Page (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does not seem to meet NPOLITICIAN, as he does not hold elected office and has not won election to public office. He's just a local party official. You would then need to show he meets the broader notable person definition, with significant coverage in independent reliable sources.
You seem to be associated with him, as you took a very professional looking image of him and he posed for you. Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:33, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113

[edit]

The sources are notable.but,those are say that's not.which one is good for notable sources 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "notable source". There are sources which can demonstrate notability, but this draft does not cite any. Consequently, this has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You have zero usable sources. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/review sources that discuss the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and other forms of strict editorial control. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:11, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 2A06:F987:FFFF:2822:DED:3C9:BB63:A9DA

[edit]

Hi friends ! I got some message from you. Will you unblock me now ? 2A06:F987:FFFF:2822:DED:3C9:BB63:A9DA (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP user. Maybe, maybe not. But we can't even look at your case if you don't tell us what the accountname is that you were blocked under. And I've no idea what Slaviccommonwealth.com means in this context: it's neither a Wikipedia article, nor a Draft, nor a user account. ColinFine (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:26, 16 October 2024 review of submission by 144.48.115.41

[edit]

a 144.48.115.41 (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question? 331dot (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Pythonbrad

[edit]

I don't have enough references for this article. Pythonbrad (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean this topic does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Kaustubh42

[edit]

What is missing as we have added each thing now ? Kaustubh42 (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:07, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Mfunderburk

[edit]

I recently was denied within a review of my page, Draft:Thriveworks. I agree with the previous editor, Bonadea's, assessment. I’ve made significant changes to ensure the draft is unbiased. I’ve reworded and removed content, particularly in the introduction, services, partnerships, and history sections, to address the concerns. I hope you agree with these changes and could confirm or deny if I have done so properly.

As a reminder, I have disclosed my conflict of interest (COI) in every edit summary and on my user page. I fully respect Wikipedia's guidelines, which is why I chose to go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process.

I believe the updated draft now meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability and neutrality. The sources are reliable, strictly independent, and provide in-depth coverage. Here are the three sources I feel best meet the criteria for WP in regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline:

https://medcitynews.com/2024/07/thriveworks-ophelia-team-up-for-mental-health-oud-support/

https://patch.com/illinois/joliet/thriveworks-partners-joliet-offer-mental-health-services

https://bhbusiness.com/2024/04/11/new-thriveworks-ceo-bullish-on-enterprise-agreements/


I believe the article now reads as an encyclopedic entry, not as a corporate listing, and is worthy of publication. Could you please review it again and let me know if you agree? If further adjustments are needed, I’d appreciate any additional guidance. Or if you think I am good to now resubmit, I would appreciate that heads up!

Thank you for your time, and stay safe! 

Mfunderburk (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you think you have addressed the problem, resubmit the draft: that is what submission is for. We don't do on-demand reviews on this page.
Though I will say that nothing in the draft leads me to think that this company is notable. I haven't looked at what the sources say about it though. ColinFine (talk) 22:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Durocel

[edit]

Hello, I'm writing about my draft about Slovak players that have played or play in American Hockey League. I wanted some tips what to do to get my arcticle public, I have been told that Eliteprospects cannot be used to prove the list meets notabillity guidelines. So what should I do more?

Thanks for answer and hope you have a great day! Yours sincirely, Durocel Durocel (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Maybe try more to show that the list will meet WP:NLIST? The current source works great for confirming nationality like the reviewer said. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 16 October 2024 review of submission by Mayor Orangutan

[edit]

I know that there will be articles talking about Little Z that I can use to source the page, however I have trouble finding them as the videos appear instead. What's a good way to find credible sources?

Also, what would be an acceptable YouTube source to article source ratio? Alpharad's page, as well as presumably many internet creator pages, contain mostly YouTube links in the References, but I added too many to the Little Z page apparently, so I was wondering a percentage that could be used? Mayor Orangutan (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube in general should not be used at all, so 0:inf. Of course, it is usable in LIMITED cases, like supporting a youtuber's subscriber count. (WP:ABOUTSELF). ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 17

[edit]

03:24, 17 October 2024 review of submission by Thisisyuvan

[edit]

These are notable sources for this article.but,those are said that's not notable.then,which one is good for notable works Thisisyuvan (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected, meaning AfC reviewers will not consider accepting it further. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is good notable work sites Thisisyuvan (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your article contained A LOT OF unreliable sources. (Daily motion, WP:YOUTUBE WP:DISCOGS) I don't see reliable sources that contribute to establishing notability in the draft at all. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable sources are removed.then what I will do next.. Thisisyuvan (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please replace them with reliable sources. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Google knowledge panel is reliable? 2409:408D:4EC7:EF6D:0:0:5F8A:A113 (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thisisyuvan: this question was already asked and answered here yesterday, and judging by your style of writing, I'm guessing that was by you. Please don't ask the same question over and over, especially about a draft that has already been rejected and will not be considered further.
I'm also assuming from your user name that you are the subject of this draft. Please note that Wikipedia is not to be used for any sort of promotion, including self-promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1251638060"