Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
Line 605: Line 605:
[[User:Popcultr|Popcultr]] ([[User talk:Popcultr|talk]]) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
[[User:Popcultr|Popcultr]] ([[User talk:Popcultr|talk]]) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|Popcultr}}, Variety is an interview which means the subject's own words and views are covered. Interviews for this reason are not considered independent secondary sources and do not contribute to notability. [[WP:THREE]] independent references that discuss the subject is the simple rule of thumb[[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|Popcultr}}, Variety is an interview which means the subject's own words and views are covered. Interviews for this reason are not considered independent secondary sources and do not contribute to notability. [[WP:THREE]] independent references that discuss the subject is the simple rule of thumb[[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

== 18:51:21, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Puserisrivate ==
{{Lafc|username=Puserisrivate|ts=18:51:21, 24 January 2022|draft=Draft:Gabriel_Reyes-Whittaker}}


I am an accomplished musician looking to publish my own page, but I have run into a few problems...first, it says I am not citing my sources correctly, and secondly, not sure where I post "{{Connected contributor|User1=Puserisrivate |U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}"

[[User:Puserisrivate|Puserisrivate]] ([[User talk:Puserisrivate|talk]]) 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:51, 24 January 2022

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
CategoryList (sorting)
ShowcaseAssessmentParticipants
TalkBy subject
Reviewing instructions
Helper script
Help
desk
Backlog
drives
Welcome to the Wikipedia Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place?
  • For your own security, please do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page; we are unable to provide answers via email.
  • Please keep in mind that we are all volunteers, and sometimes a reply may take a little time. Your patience is appreciated.
  • Bona fide reviewers at Articles for Creation will never contact or solicit anyone for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article. If someone contacts you with such an offer, please post on this help desk page.
Click here to ask a new question.

A reviewer should soon answer your question on this page. Please check back often.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


January 18

00:12:22, 18 January 2022 review of draft by DKingWorldwide


Hello,

For my draft, I understand that the artist doesn't have his own solo debut yet, thus he is not qualified as a solo musician, however, he has debuted as a main producer and songwriter for the group, as shown on the information below:

On February 6, 2020, iKON released their third EP, iDecide, which included five tracks with Dive as the lead single.[15] Kim Dong-hyuk debuted as songwriter and record producer of “Flower” ((너란 바람 따라; neolan balam ttala; lit. Follow the wind that is you), one of the sidetrack singles, in which he also choreographed their dance performances.[16][17][18]

Linked articles that have coverage of this news are as follow (all in the Korean language): https://www.hankyung.com/news/article/2020020121764 title translated in English: iKON comeback D-5, YG said, "DK participated in producing and Bobby's involved in 3 songs" https://n.news.naver.com/entertain/article/469/0000466341 http://pop.heraldcorp.com/view.php?ud=202002121103029069392_1 title translated in English: "Donghyuk Kim of iKON “My first production challenge, the members responded well”

Will this be sufficient enough to prove his notability as he has enough coverage in the news regarding his debut as the music producer/songwriter? Please advise. Thank you so much for the help.

DKingWorldwide (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

02:17:07, 18 January 2022 review of draft by MyrellBW


I am requesting this draft to be approved for doing all the content that I did for a living person Biography as I already give all the citations possible that I needed to do it.

MyrellBW (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


Why is my Draft always declined? MyrellBW (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MyrellBW The draft was finally rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers for future reference. It appears that the person does not meet the notability criteria for a notable creative professional. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 02:52:30, 18 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Axel20301000


Hi, I want to create a biography page of myself page within Wikipedia as is a Tweeter validation requirement, based on the previous resolutions, after reviewing my references,they are mainly on social media from my home country from TV shows that were nationally aired while I was on vacations (see links at the end of message). I also complete google validation process to be found by going ogle search (https://g.co/kgs/cGqUfz)

Web Tune https://web.tunecore.com/discography#.YeSQLGkUlSA


TV Show Exit from Grupo Megavisión El Salvador Jan 17 2019 https://m.facebook.com/stor y.php?story_fbid=2061294463950615&id=123113551102059

Feb 25 2019 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2061294463950615&id=123113551102059

March 22 2019 https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=3823125911100786&id=123113551102059

Spotify Link https://open.spotify.com/artist/6k9a9Xe2FHkmYjYByDSm4n


I would like your advice about if any of the above reference meets the requested criteria

Axel20301000 (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Axel20301000:, you seemed to have misunderstood what Twitter requires for validation in regards to Wikipedia. It requires a stable article which meets our inclusion criteria of WP:GNG as validated by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. So far you have failed to show how any of these requirements have been met. Writing autobiographies is highly discouraged and having an article on Wikipedia is not always a good thing. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Axel20301000 Wikipedia has no interest in helping you get verified by Twitter or any social media, or how an article might help you personally(there are in fact good reasons to not want an article). What matters is if you meet our notability criteria; any other benefit is secondary. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Facebook and Spotify are not reliable independent sources, and the Tunecore link leads to a login page. Please take a moment to read the information that is linked from the decline notice, and from the posts above. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

04:24:32, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Bharattudu0987


Bharattudu0987 (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bharattudu0987: You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. --Finngall talk 02:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

05:06:53, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Rambabuyadavnepal


Rambabuyadavnepal (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

please approve this article Draft:Milan Pandey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambabuyadavnepal (talkcontribs)

Rambabuyadavnepal As you were told by reviewers, it seems that he does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable politician or more broadly a notable person. The draft must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coveage have chosen on their own to say about him(and not based on any materials from him or his associates like an interview). 331dot (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

07:02:40, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Masry684


Masry684 (talk) 07:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Masry684 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

07:47:20, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Syedshoaib370


Syedshoaib370 (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Syedshoaib370 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

09:24:46, 18 January 2022 review of draft by BregtjeV


Dear moderator,

I made a translation of the existing Dutch article on this artist, which is now declined for the second time for reasons of not meeting the standards of quotation. I have a few questions: - Does this concern the parts which are red (people by whom Caspar Berger studied), who don't have a page on the English Wikipedia? Can I link to the Dutch pages on Wikipedia in these cases? - Can I refer to the site of the artist himself when making a quotation? - Is it allowed to cite the existing Wikipedia for the Sacha Tanja Penning?

At this moment I don't know where the problem lies.

Thank you for your help and have a nice day.!

Anne Vollebregt

BregtjeV (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi BregtjeV.
  • It is okay to have red links, a draft will not be declined for that reason.
  • You may link to articles on the Dutch Wikipedia using template {{ill}}, which produces links such as Maja van Hall [nl].
  • You may cite the artist's own website, but only for uncontroversial information, and the article should cite mainly independent sources. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for more details.
  • Wikipedia is user-generated, so it is not a reliable source and should not be cited.
The draft's most obvious problems are that there are no inline citations in the "Life and work" section or supporting the museum collections. You use inline citations elsewhere, so you evidently understand the technique. I strongly recommend that you use inline citations throughout, rather than the current mix of mostly general references and a few inline citations. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
What are the problems at this moment with my page? In my opinion I have done everything I could.
Could you give me specific feedback on links or texts that do not meet the Wikipedia standards?
Thanx a lot.
BregjeV BregtjeV (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

09:44:47, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Meshkati20


Mr. Panahi is an established artist, and we were hoping to get him included on Wikipedia to highlight his background and early life which made him the artist that he is today. There have been many exhibitions held in his honour, where he showcases his different works and explains to the audience what made him make the piece in question. Specifically his 'Musicalligraphy" pieces hold the highest regard because of their complexity yet fundamental idea, wherein he blends his love for music and calligraphy in one abstract piece of work.

If you could please offer us some guidance on how we should proceed in this venture of ours, we would be extremely grateful. Meshkati20 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Meshkati20 Who is "we"? The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As noted by reviewers, the sources offered are either very brief mentions or associated with the subject. Wikipedia requires sources with significant, in depth coverage that are completely independent of the subject. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

By 'we' I mean myself and Mr. Panahi. Please find below referenced pieces from magazines and newspapers supporting this submission.

Hadara Magazine - https://www.hadaramagazine.com/?p=3187&fbclid=IwAR3VlNIFWKt45h-ODyg53lSBnxBer6q6iJkoktwECI5tfYL-S4AtiXD0z60 Islamic Republic News Agency - https://en.irna.ir/news/83767758/Persian-calligraphy-art-of-balance The Sunday Times - https://www.sundaytimes.lk/970302/plus4.html The National - https://www.pressreader.com/uae/the-national-news/20191201/281921659906756

There are various galleries that discuss Mr. Panahi, along with curators - if there is something that is missing, guidance would be appreciated instead of just being given a "rejection".

Thanks

Meshkati20 (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Meshkati20 For additional comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections for every comment. If you work with Mr. Panahi, you have a conflict of interest that you should disclose. If he is compensating you in any manner(not just money or even anything tangible) you are required by the Wikipedia Terms of Use to make a formal declaration as a paid editor, see the paid editing policy. As the draft was rejected, there is nothing that you can do to improve it further. The sources you list here seem to be interviews with him, this does not establish notability as an interview is the person speaking about themselves. Wikipedia wants to know what others independent of him choose on their own to say about him, not what he says about himself. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

09:49:04, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Jaanus K


Jaanus K (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


Hello! The article was rejected for not answering the COI inquiry, however I have answered it on the Talk page and added the relevant notices.

Jaanus K That was the last comment by a reviewer, but not the reason it was rejected. It was rejected for being promotional. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do; an article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own(and not prompted by any materials put out by the company, like interviews, press releases, announcements) to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. As the draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Jaanus K (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Hello! I've submitted multiple drafts that have relied on independent and accepted sources per the wikipedia notability criteria - such as Bloomberg etc. However I do not see how the article is more promotional than say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northvolt, which is a very similar company making similar products?

I've reverted the rejection since COI was declared even if I couldn't find it due to mobile limitations. However, it remains likely the next reviewer will decline or reject as there is no indication of notability and every indication the only purpose of the draft is promotion of the subject.Slywriter (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

12:06:00, 18 January 2022 review of draft by CristeenaC


I cannot add photographs in the page I am creating. Please help.

CristeenaC (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

CristeenaC Images are not necessary for submitting a draft; the presence of images is not usually considered by reviewers. Once accepted, you can begin to add images. You must be autoconfirmed to be able to upload images yourself(account is four days old with 10 edits or more). 331dot (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

15:24:49, 18 January 2022 review of submission by BarbaraLassen


BarbaraLassen (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


Dear Wikipedia friends, it seems that I need advice. When offering the entry on the poet Jurgen Theobaldy, I based it on the entry in the German language Wikipedia which is inadequately supported by referenced sources. (Perhaps because the poet is so well-known in Germany, it was not deemed essential.) I agree that my entry had to be rejected because there were few sources added in the form of references. Now, the entry is rejected because there are too many references and too many sources and I quoted at great length (in the original with added translation to English.) I have deleted some links to sources that are online. My experience is that sources that are available in few libraries are often rejected. Is it because some reviewers accept only resources that can be checked online with ease? I need help. Is it still too much I add to the initial, badly referenced text on Theobaldy? Or have I deleted details that I should not have deleted? I am certain that experienced Wikipedia editors can give good advice. Thank you so much for your help, dear friends. My best/ Barbara

20:54:00, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Masry684


Masry684 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

21:42:58, 18 January 2022 review of draft by CopyKait


I'd like help with the notability of my article. It seems like a notable company, but it was declined previously for not having good enough sources. I'm hoping to find out if my updated citations meet the standard for a tech company before resubmitting, or if I should submit it. Thank you! CopyKait (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

22:47:21, 18 January 2022 review of draft by Swamp Greetings


Hi,

After submitting my draft I got the message "Need independent reliable sources".

So far I've included:

  • An official record from the Spanish Ministry of Justice re. the subject (direct link).
  • A direct mention from an official agency/foundation, directly connected to the Spanish Ministry of the Presidency.
  • 3 direct mentions from peer organisations from two different countries (also recognised by the State), acknowledging the subject (more available, but it'd be saturation).
  • 3 news from 3 different newspapers.
  • 1 radio program.
  • 1 TV special (Channel 5, UK).
  • Direct links to 2 relevant "wider" associations (one national, one international) the subject is a member of (thus fully acknowledged as a peer).
  • 5 examples of subject's involvement in a number of causes: 1 from a learned/research society, 1 from a local government (official), 3 from other established associations (more available, but it'd be saturation).
  • Ps. And a couple of published papers (university proceedings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamp Greetings (talkcontribs) 22:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The Galician and Portuguese pages have already been published:

https://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irmandade_Dru%C3%ADdica_Galaica

https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irmandade_Dru%C3%ADdica_Galaica

Obviously, for some actual info about the organisation itself I had to dig into its own website and social media (external sources are not going to explain how exactly it works).


Please advise. Regards.


Swamp Greetings (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Swamp Greetings, Other Wikipedias have different standards and en-wiki tends to be the strictest. Your sources are largely primary sources or sources connected to the subject. Wikipedia cares about what independent reliable sources have to say about the subject. Official records, direct mentions in primary documents, write ups by other organizations do not show notability. The radio program is a website hosted on wordpress with no author. Praza is a passing mention(and that's being generous), and at least one of your academic sources is about Druid, not the specific organization. Reviewers are not expected to review dozens of low quality references to find notability for you. The organization may be notable, but any hint of that notability is buried in the use of primary and connected sources.Slywriter (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

23:19:21, 18 January 2022 review of submission by Cakepops or bust

My article was declined, even though it is not finished. Please tell me why it declined so I can improve!

Cakepops or bust (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Cakepops or bust Your draft is sourced to nothing but another wiki; Wikipedia articles must summarize independent reliable sources like news reports. If no one has written about what I assume is your micronation, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. Compare your draft to Republic of Molossia and Principality of Sealand. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

January 19

00:33:26, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Muamalq

Hello, I wrote an article about this person because he is considered one of the talented people in Iraq, and he is old In all the Spanish conferences in the name of Iraq He has many sources Muamalq (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

03:35:40, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Hgizemtas

Why my article was declined? What can I do to make it published? Hgizemtas (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hgizemtas: One source - especially a source from the subject themselves - is not enough to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

06:48:16, 19 January 2022 review of submission by 122.186.82.18


the Content is Not Promotional and not even any paid contribution.. Please check the Content again and do whatever changes are required to get this Publish.. My Concern behind the article is only that they are providing Diagnostic Services and reaching to Rural areas very fast along with CRS activities, So would be good to read on this Company.

122.186.82.18 (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If you are employed by the lab, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit. The draft was sourced to nothing but press release type stories, or announcements of the routine activities of the company. Wikipedia requires independent reliable sources with significant coverage that are unconnected with the subject and do not write based on what the company tells them or merely what it does. Because the sources did not do that, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

07:12:33, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Shakirullahsahir

We have TV channel to create wikipedia page for the reason of biography of our channel so this information will not use for illegal aim so please re-review and accept this,thank you Shakirullahsahir (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

it is important for us to have our tv channel information in wikipedia for clients so please re-review and i have completed the all requirements for the page i don't know where is my mistake kindly you point that area where is mistake. Thank you Shakirullahsahir (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Shakirullahsahir Wikipedia has no interest in helping your clients, as that is a promotional purpose. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Any other benefit is secondary and not our concern. As your draft was rejected, it will not be considered further. Please review the comments left by reviewers and the policies linked to in the message. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

08:30:27, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Bahram2010


Since I started to edit the UArchitects page on Wikipedia, and it was my first edition on Wiki, so I requested for a review. The reason is that i would like to expand people s knowledge at Dutch architectural offices, who deliver or have delivered meaningful works.

Bahram2010 (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Blatant attempt to promote one company. Rejected in 2020 after several Declines. David notMD (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

08:31:02, 19 January 2022 review of draft by 43.248.153.213


I'm a newbie and have no idea on how to rectify the errors for this draft. I really wish to publish a wikipedia page for this celeb. If you can advise in particular what is missing in this draft, I'll try my best to work on it.

The draft has been prepared by another user and I've no link with them. I'm a fan of Pratik Sehajpal and came across this draft while trying to create a page for him. It is very crucial for him to have it in this point in time. 43.248.153.213 (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no interest in how the presence of an article (not a mere "page") benefits a potential subject. There are, in fact, good reasons to not want an article. Our only interest is in summarizing independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. The other sources merely tells what the person has done and do not demonstrate how they meet the notability criteria. Please see the messages left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

09:00:01, 19 January 2022 review of submission by HYPER2011


HYPER2011 (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please give a summary of the problem you are facing. Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki Talk~~ 10:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

10:27:46, 19 January 2022 review of draft by Leegiaphu17


I have created an article titled as "Samuel Hwang". It is at Draft:Samuel Hwang. The thing is I don't know if the article got rejected or not and how I can improve this article. Unlike other articles at User:"my user name"/sandbox/"article title" which I know why these articles got rejected, I have no clue about how to fix this article Draft:Samuel Hwang. Can someone help me? Leegiaphu17 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Leegiaphu17: Your article is being rejected. Don't worry, you can always improve and submit the improved version. Wiki Emoji | Emojiwiki Talk~~ 10:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

10:46:10, 19 January 2022 review of draft by ReaElle


How can I ask Wikipedia cracks for support so that a contribution makes it quickly to be published? Specifically, it is about the Collegium Helveticum, an Institute for Advanced Studies, whose draft has not yet been released. I'm not really experienced here and would be incredibly grateful for support from a professional who can finish the whole thing cleanly.

ReaElle (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

ReaElle There is no way to ensure a speedy review. This is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can do it. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? If you are associated with this organization, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures. You may ask for assistance here. Your main problem is that your draft has no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to support its content. A Wikipedia article is not for merely telling about the existence of the subject and what it does. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage (not primary sources) have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable organization. If no independent reliable sources give this organization significant coverage, it would not merit an article at this time; not every organization merits an article, even in the same field. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

10:46:44, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Leegiaphu17

How do I know about the status of this article? How can I make this better? Leegiaphu17 (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Leegiaphu17: it had not been a day since you submitted the draft for publication. do wait a couple of days next time. I have declined and left comments in the draft on what's missing. – robertsky (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

11:44:07, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Open Browser Wiki


Open Browser Wiki (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

12:15:27, 19 January 2022 review of submission by President Diary


I wrote an article on Olumide Fayakin and I feedback that the submission is contray to the purpose of Wikipedia.

I need clarity on the purpose of Wikipedia.

President Diary (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

How do you mean by personal resume/CV and NOT what Wikipedia is for.

I want to write a biography for the said person, how do I go about it?

Thanks! President Diary (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Olumide Fayakin has no sources, independent sources are what we base articles on. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the the article, please review. President Diary (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

President Diary Please edit this existing section of the page, instead of creating additional sections. Your draft was rejected and will not be considered any more. You are only wasting your time and that of others by pursuing this further. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

14:00:04, 19 January 2022 review of draft by Drej.miha.2021


I have made changes to this article and the references. However the article was rejected even though the subject is supported by a writen work of the author as well as two encyclopedia entries. Why are these references not correct?


Drej.miha.2021 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearly a book written by the article's subject "Velimir Brezovski' cannot be independent. Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

19:00:37, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Joffejs


Why was my page for Ricky Dale Harrington Jr. declined?

Joffejs (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that Draft:Ricky Harrington Jr met the criteria at WP:NPOLITICIAN just being an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. I figured he fell under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage," since he was the first black

Senate candidate in Arkansas and the best-performing Libertarian candidate in a U.S. Senate election. Also the fact that he has been a notable candidate in two races (2020 Senate and 2022 Gubernatorial). Will defer to your judgment though Joffejs (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to re-submit, I'll leave it to another reviewer, I could well be wrong and you could well be right! Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for your edits Joffejs (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Theroadislong, I declined it for failing WP:GNG. I did not feel it was proven through the sources cited that he experienced significant press coverage. However, if at least 3 sources that pass WP:RS can be found, I will gladly accept. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

20:44:12, 19 January 2022 review of draft by Chiulander


Looking for extra clarity on the reviewer comments. I've read through the guidelines on citations and notability. Am I understanding correctly that for organizations, I'd need to have some veritable 3rd party source do a write up of Malecare in order for me to have an acceptable citation? This would *exclude* articles that quote the founder or more "human" pieces that describe a patient's personal experience, right? Chiulander (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Chiulander If you enlist a third party to write about Malecare, it is no longer a third party, but someone you have asked to help you. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the (in this case) organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Those reliable sources should write about the organization not based on any materials put out by the organization or requests from its members/staff.
If you work for this organization, please review the information I placed on your user talk page regarding paid editing; also review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think the author was asking about third party media coverage, not a Wikipedia writer. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find additional coverage. Might be WP:TOOSOON. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

21:42:32, 19 January 2022 review of submission by Masry684

Hello, I’m asking what is needed for this article to be approved. Kindly note that the film is important and well known to Egyptian audience. Thanks for understanding. Masry684 (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Masry684 There is nothing that you can do, as rejection means that the draft cannot be resubmitted. No amount of editing can confer notability. Please review the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


January 20

02:45:56, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 122.177.98.206


I little bit confused because the source and references which I had attached are reliable, independent and reputed media houses. But my draft was declined by giving these reasons. Please advise 122.177.98.206 (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No draft specified. – robertsky (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

04:12:33, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 157.46.115.246


157.46.115.246 (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

11:29:48, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Sanjith kanth


Sanjith kanth (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Sanjith kanth You don't ask a question, but your draft was blatant advertising. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

13:56:35, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Jontickner

Hello. I'm having trouble with this draft, as the sources previously didn't make the credibility/reliability grade. I've made some minor changes to a couple of sources, and believe the article to be "based on reliable, published sources" now. I've also ensured all the information in it is properly covered by those sources.

The article will involve closer scrutiny, of course, because it's a biog for a living person. All the sources used are independent, in no way self-published, do not involve trial/court transcripts and so on. Many of them are sources to back up something that physically exists - books, in the main. I've also made clear what information/facts they are referring to.

Although the subject makes an appearance in plenty of other wikipedia pages, I have not used these as sources or references.

But I may have miss-judged, and I wonder whether there is a particular source (or sources) I still have in the most recent edit which is not considered high enough quality.

Can you point me to the specifics? Once I know which one(s) I'll address either by sourcing new information or deleting that content.

Huge thanks for your help on this - it's really appreciated. Jon Jontickner (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Jontickner (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

13:57:05, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Dwightkomproe

You need to disclose your paid editing status before editing further. Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

13:57:37, 20 January 2022 review of submission by ShinexStar

I need a re-review as I have done the needful. Please check it now ShinexStar (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

16:13:07, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Ajayjagtap1632000

I have quite a good number of citations in this article, so all the information I am writing is true and trustworthy. If it's about notability, Dr Shridhar Pandya is a notable person with several review articles and research papers online by his name.

If it's not enough, let me know if there is anything I could do to get my article published on Wikipedia.

Ajayjagtap1632000 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

16:54:07, 20 January 2022 review of submission by 831n


Since the initial submission, the variety and number of sources has increased. Is this ready for submission now?

831n (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

17:36:08, 20 January 2022 review of draft by Cvu27


Hi, I recently got a wikipedia submission rejected due to the following

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.

I am wondering if I can keep passing mentions in the submission as well as include significant coverage in my submission? Thanks.

Cvu27 (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Cvu27, most likely you can. AfC reviewers are mostly focused on WP:Notability and WP:GNG which require independent secondary sources. Once notability has been met the bar moves to WP:DUE for inclusion of material.Slywriter (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
E/C Sure you can keep passing mentions, but they do not contribute to any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 17:44:24, 20 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by CyrilPul


I am a member of a choral society and have tried to produce a Wikipedia page showing the history.

I have checked the design with and got approval from the Chairman and the person responsible for the web page.

My history on the Wikipedia entry, that I am trying to submit, does contain some phrases from the URL of the society.

I have looked on the website https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates and found a template containing:-

To: permissions-commons at wikimedia.org

I hereby affirm that I choose one: [am name] or [represent copyright holder's name], the choose one: [creator] or [sole owner] of the exclusive copyright of choose one: [the media work][1] or [the work depicted in the media][2] or [both the work depicted and the media][3] as shown here: [exact URL of the file uploaded on Wikimedia Commons],[4] and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.

I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5]

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

[Sender's name] [Sender's authority (if applicable. E.g. "Copyright holder", "Director", "Appointed representative of", etc.)] [Date]

If I get this signed and sent off, will I then be able to use some of the wording from the Society's webpage?

Thanks

CyrilPul (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

CyrilPul, are there multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the subject? Even with permission, the subject's own words are of limited use (WP:ABOUTSELF) and do not contribute to WP:Notability / WP:GNG. I'd focus on getting the article accepted first before worrying about content from the subject. Also see WP:COI as you have a clear conflict of interest and must declare it.Slywriter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


CyrilPul, are there multiple independent secondary sources that discuss the subject? Even with permission, the subject's own words are of limited use (WP:ABOUTSELF) and do not contribute to WP:Notability / WP:GNG. I'd focus on getting the article accepted first before worrying about content from the subject. Also see WP:COI as you have a clear conflict of interest and must declare it.Slywriter (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
CyrilPul (ec) You are putting the cart before the horse in that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have said about a topic, not what it says about itself. Put another way, we don't want to know what the society considers to be its own history, but what independent reliable sources report to be its history. The society's website is where it may tell about its own history. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

20:00:24, 20 January 2022 review of draft by Smith216


Come Out Fighting (2022 film) is an American war film.

This film is centered on history meeting with changes will include as of the historical "being" mention that a "war film" includes Wikipedia affirmation.


Smith216 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Smith216

Smith216 Wikipedia is not here to affirm films or any topic. To merit an article, this film must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film. Unreleased films are generally not notable unless some aspect of the production of the film is notable(such as the recent on set shooting at Rust (suspended film)). Your draft has no sources at all, even if the film was released. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

20:31:17, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Avi Sindhu


Avi Sindhu (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Avi Sindhu: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Pretty much all your sources are the subject themselves and do not help for notability as a consequence. It's also written as if to try an attract an audience; we do not tolerate advertizing masquerading as an encyclopaedia article and neither does Wikipedia's readers. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

22:09:03, 20 January 2022 review of submission by Ebates01

This is written from an neutral point of view. Ebates01 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Heck, no! It was hopeless promotional, a shameless advertisement with a side order of brown-nosing of the family who donated the money. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

January 21

11:17:24, 21 January 2022 review of submission by 103.85.11.216


103.85.11.216 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't ask a question, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

11:22:48, 21 January 2022 review of submission by Sainathsengundhar

Oliver La Rosa is well known celebrity in crypto giant so he should be in Wikipedia all this details are accurate kindly approve it.

Sainathsengundhar (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sainathsengundhar The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this person. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

13:29:48, 21 January 2022 review of submission by 103.4.125.25


103.4.125.25 (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a how to guide or guidebook. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

16:43:57, 21 January 2022 review of draft by AdjectiveGuy


Hi. I've used Wikipedia for a while and I totally forgot something. How many citations needed for an article?

AdjectiveGuy (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

AdjectiveGuy There is not a specific number, but to pass this process most reviewers look for at least three sources with significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
AdjectiveGuy Would you consider merging the content and redirecting to Kalaleng? TechnoTalk (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

18:08:05, 21 January 2022 review of draft by George-Amherst


The title of my submission has been changed without my permission. The new title is totally unacceptable. Please advise on how I should proceed. I would demand to withdraw the submission altogether rather than proceed with the title which has been substituted for the original title. George-Amherst (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

George-Amherst, the page can be moved to a different title, if sources support but what it can not have is three different titles and an opening line that says "Subject is...". All three can be used in the opening sentence if sources support.
What is the proper title for the article?
Also, you can abandon the draft and it will be deleted in six months or you can place {{Db-author}} at the top of the page and an admin will clear it out.Slywriter (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The page name has been changed without my permission, and it is a totally incorrect title of the subject of the article I have submitted. The correct title of the article is: Le Musée français, Le Musée Napoléon and Le Musée royal. It should not be considered under the title Le Musee royal, and I need to withdraw it if this change cannot be corrected. George-Amherst (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@George-Amherst: if and when the draft is accepted, it can be moved to a title that better reflects the content. --bonadea contributions talk 18:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
George-Amherst (ec) Please leave a post on the draft talk page regarding the title; if the draft is accepted, the reviewer can place it at the proper title. Please note that Wikipedia typically uses the name of a topic that is most commonly used by independent reliable sources, and not necessarily official or legal names. See WP:COMMONNAME. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I am curious as to why the title would be a deal breaker for an otherwise valid article (if it is). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
George-Amherst If this were a company article, it would not list all the previous names of the company in the title. It would just list the current or latest name, and mention the earlier names in the history, bolded if there are redirects. Otherwise you'd have an article called Verizon, GTE, Bell Atlantic. The last title the publication held should be the article title. Once an article is loaded, it isn't owned by anyone, so sometimes that can be hard for the writer. Perhaps a blog might be more to your liking, since then you can keep others from changing it. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I have done some minor edits to bring it into further alignment and hopefully clear up the title issue a bit more. I believe, this article is not about a single publication, but about three publications as a series. This series does not have a singular title, as one may expect with most other series. They are referred to by all three when written about in the sources or individually if you are only speaking of a single publication. I do believe an article on each could be possible but would duplicate much of the content. So I can see some of the frustration of George-Amherst, but this is a strong over reaction to something this minor which can very quickly be cleared up with some discussion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
George-Amherst Also, if accepted, redirects can be created from the other names that it has had.Naraht (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

20:33:45, 21 January 2022 review of submission by Eatthecrow

Hello! I was wondering if someone could help me out. I'm still learning how to write a good Wikipedia article. In the Draft:Jo Bamford, one of the reasons they declined it was it needs to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Can anyone offer some pointers on how I could do that to improve the draft article? Thanks! Eatthecrow (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

EatthecrowI'd reach out to the editor Synoman Barris that declined the article. It looks like it was improved some, but isn't a slam dunk.Naraht (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Replied to on my talk page. Cheers Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 14:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 22:43:43, 21 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Itsfrizzy


My article has been rejected for using content that I own the copyright of, isn't that acceptable?

Itsfrizzy (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

It has also been declined because the references do not show that you qualify for a Wikipedia article, the references are your own website and Wikipedia has zero interest in what that says about you, we require independent sources that discuss you in depth. Theroadislong (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

January 22

11:37:33, 22 January 2022 review of draft by Irishkiwi007


I am not sure what more I can do to reference this article. The documentary was published on You Tube and is still there. The Director commented on facebook the number of views in the first 48 hours (reference to FB post added). The movie details (producer, director, cast, etc) have all been taken from the movie credits.

This is a small time product on a small budget with no advertising. Maybe watch Battleground Melbourne before you reject again?

Irishkiwi007 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Irishkiwi007 The content of the documentary is immaterial. Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. It will only merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. If no independent sources write about this documentary, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Facebook and YouTube are not independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I also gather that you may have an association with this film, if so, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

14:29:20, 22 January 2022 review of submission by A Cutting Edge Glass

Hello, I would really like to know the reason why my post was rejected. The text is written organically and all the information is 100% accurate, I also I think the information about this product is very useful and I don't think there is any misuse. Can you please give me advice so that I can improve my post and so that it is eventually accepted by you.

Best Regards! A Cutting Edge Glass & Mirror A Cutting Edge Glass (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A Cutting Edge Glass Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a topic, or to advertise a topic. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a topic, showing how that topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your draft offers no sources, which are required for verification purposes. It is also worded as more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

15:47:36, 22 January 2022 review of draft by Rkieferbaum


Hi, everyone! I'm experienced in ptwiki (portuguese) but haven't done many edits in enwiki, so I'm here to request a little assistance. The article above was moved to draft with the request to add more reliable, independent sources. It currently has 26 references, most of which are from well established media vehicles (including the BBC), though, granted, most of these aren't in English. I'm guessing this is the reason for the move and am currently working on adding more sources in English.

If there's anything else of note, then constructive input would be more than welcome.

Thanks and cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rkieferbaum: I have not reviewed the sources but English sources are not required so that is not the issue. I suggest reading WP:THREE and posting a note on the draft's talk page with the three best sources you believe establish notability. I also suggest trimming out some the sources. There is generally no need to have multiple sources to support a fact so use the best one. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

19:28:45, 22 January 2022 review of submission by A40585

I'd like some more in-depth feedback on my article's rejection. The reason it was rejected was reading like an essay. I would like a bit more feedback on why this was, since I read the links the reviewer linked when I was writing the article, and I thought I was writing in a relatively encyclopedic fashion. Everything is sourced in primary/secondary sources (I admittedly need to fix up citing Wikipedia for a few sentences, I will do that tomorrow when I have the time). I made sure to not include my opinions, and basically summarize what my sources said about the topic. I would find it very useful to find more specific pointers about what language/parts of my article are specifically essay-like, since I thought I was doing what the links my reviewer linked were doing. Thanks a lot! A40585 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585: As written it reads more like an educational essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Keep it simple. Stick strictly to what the sources themselves say, do not extrapolate, and do not editorialise. You're not writing for the benefit of a bunch of students, you're writing for Joe Blow Splhamoney who's not looking for textbook examples; they just want an overview of what it is and a back-of-the-napkin explanation of what it does. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 23

00:28:15, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Sunil2404


Sunil2404 (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


I wrote an article about a crypto project and also provided the link of an article published on Postmannews but still it got rejected. Please help me to publish the article.

Sunil2404, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. It requires independent, reliable secondary sources discussing the subject and must be written in a neutral tone. Additionally, it has been tagged for deletion as in its current state, there is no chance of it being an article.Slywriter (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Sunil2404: Care to take a mulligan on the topic area?A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

06:15:05, 23 January 2022 review of draft by Deshabandara


My Article "Ruwan Fernando" has been rejected due to lack of references. Shall I put the youtube links of my released video songs? Deshabandara (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Deshabandara: No, because we shouldn't be citing music videos for anything (no editorial oversight/connexion to subject). We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable.A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

06:55:41, 23 January 2022 review of submission by 192.88.124.49


I have resubmitted much more information to Wikipedia in the correct format and would like it to be re-reviewed and aproved. 192.88.124.49 (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further barring considerably more and considerably better sources; we do not cite LinkedIn for anything. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 06:59:56, 23 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Sachitj


I can understand there are long pending request but cannot expect rejection within 3 minutes of publishing my content. Reference are from wikipedia pages itself. Will request to review it again and I promise, I will keep updating the page.

Sachitj (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sachitj: We are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to an in-depth, independent source with editorial oversight that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a hard requirement when writing about living people on Wikipedia and is NOT negotiable. The article as written is also promotional ("is a respectable and acclaimed name in the world of short films"? Really?). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

07:58:20, 23 January 2022 review of submission by ArticleCompiler


Hello, I would like advice on how to improve my submission for it to be accepted. I have read the guidelines and advice but I am at loss as to how to implement the general notability guideline. Thank you in advance.

ArticleCompiler (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@ArticleCompiler: Absent more and better sources that discuss Tantei at length, this draft isn't going anywhere. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

16:53:57, 23 January 2022 review of submission by profjrhodes

The page got declined because of lack of reliable sources--don't know how to address this, since I provided official/public websites verifying claims...? Also, maybe my reference style is incorrect. Help! (Note: I have announced my potential conflict of interest here. I don't editorialize, just list verifiable facts. Profjrhodes (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

18:23:51, 23 January 2022 review of submission by Ugloud


Ugloud (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ugloud, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for promotional content. Articles must be sourced to reliable, independent sources.Slywriter (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 18:27:04, 23 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by BG Gurung



BG Gurung (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 24

02:19:25, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Deshabandara

Dear Sir,

Please let me know how should I claim my identity.

Thank You

Deshabandara (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Deshavandara, Wikipedia pages are created for subjects that show notability in secondary reliable sources. A small fraction of humans who lived/live/will live on this planet will actually meet the standards for having an article. Focus on being successful and someone, someday may write a wikipedia article about you.Slywriter (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 02:32:44, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by JosePiedra


I'm requesting assistance because DGG rejected my article. The message I received states, "The reason left by DGG was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: basically political advertising."

DGG doesn't cite any examples or evidence to demonstrate how my article "is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia," nor does he provide any evidence to support his completely subjective categorization of the article as "political advertising." In other words, DGG's subjective assessment without providing evidence to support his claims demonstrates his failure to abide by the Wikipedia neutrality principle.

Having reviewed my submission, I fail to see anything about it that is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, i.e., the Five Pillars. I would hope that a more objective reviewer/editor can see that the rejected article is written from a neutral perspective and absolutely not "political advertising" as DGG capriciously claims. (The article even documents, with citations, that County Commissioner Keith Baker is term-limited and has stated that he has no plans to run for any other elected office.) Additionally, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles/entries on Wikipedia about various politicians at all levels of government, and frankly, the article I submitted is better quality than several entries that I've read about politicians.

Everything in my article includes citations for sources of the information included, and the article is written from a neutral point of view, which further undermines DGG's claim of "political advertising." For example, this entry about a Colorado politician, includes the following biographical information without citations: "Kerr attended Foothills Elementary School, Dunstan Middle School, and Green Mountain High School, all within HD 26. Kerr received a B.A. in Geography, an M.A. in Information and Learning Technologies, and an Administrative Leadership and Policy Studies license from the University of Colorado." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Kerr_(American_politician)

If anything, DGG's comments demonstrate disrespect for my legitimate work as a professional with a graduate degree and more than 30 years of professional experience as a writer and editor of publications in technical, scientific, business, history and many other disciplines.

For what it's worth, I started contributing to Wikipedia to improve entries related to Central Colorado, where I've worked as a professional editor and journalist for over 15 years. After making significant improvements to entries of local importance, I began working to create new entries to improve the information available about the people and places important to this region. After a decorated military careeer, Keith Baker has been a pillar of the local communities. Unfortunately, I was not able to find citable sources for most of his military achievements, but his other accomplishments, from helping to establish Browns Canyon National Monument, opposing Nestle Waters Norht America's groundwater extraction, are fully documented in my article. I have no interest in "political advertising," and I resent the subjective, unprofessional manner in which DGG rejected my article based on that false assertion. If anything in my draft does not meet Wikipedia standards, I'd appreciate a response from someone with enough professionalism to point out exactly what misses the mark and what can be done to address the deficiency.

I look forward to a reasonable response.

JosePiedra (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

JosePiedra A county level politician does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable politician, which means that Commissioner Baker must meet the broader definition of a notable person. I believe you that there are other similar or worse articles out there; as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. I don't see where DGG was "unprofessional" in just giving their views. That you disagree with their assessment (which is fine) does not mean that they were unprofessional in giving it.
The draft does a good job of summarizing what he has been involved with, but seem to have little coverage of him personally. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic have chosen on their own to say about it. Please tell the three best sources you have for this person which provide significant coverage of them.
You say you are a professional writer; do you work for or represent Commissioner Baker? If so, please read about conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

06:52:39, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Luckyluce


Luckyluce (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Luckyluce, you don't ask a question but your draft cites no sources. Need independent secondary sources to establish notability.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

07:48:33, 24 January 2022 review of submission by 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6


Updated references. Kale My Name is very popular in black community. Unless you are black, you should not be deciding if this is notable enough. Please allow the page! 2601:241:480:6340:0:0:0:78D6 (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works; the race of the reviewer does not play into whether an article or draft meets the notability criteria, and you cannot request that persons of a certain race(which we have no way to verify anyway, as we don't ask for proof of race here) review a draft. It is not us "deciding if it is notable enough"; you or those part of what seems to be a campaign to include this restaurant, must demonstrate that the restaurant receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets WP:ORG, the definition of a notable organization. As the draft was rejected, this seems unlikely, and as such it will not be considered further. Please use social media or the restaurant website to tell the world about this restaurant. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

09:56:46, 24 January 2022 review of draft by CarlSerafino


There is an article about this in 5 different languages. But the one I created in English was rejected. I would like to learn how to improve. I would also like to learn how to create a drop-down menu so that readers can view an article about a subject in different languages such as this one. CarlSerafino (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

CarlSerafino The draft was declined, not rejected- the terms have different meanings here; rejection would mean resubmission would not be possible. Please review the comments left by reviewers, as well as the deletion discussion linked to there. Note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies, and as such what is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another. I don't believe what you ask about a drop down menu is technically possible. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

11:09:55, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ising4jesus

Regarding the AOZ Studio draft page...


What do I need to do to correct the problems that were flagged? I thought I'd addressed them. Do I just need additional authoritative sources?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What makes this page "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia"?

Ising4jesus (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ising4jesus First, if you work for them, you are a paid editor, you don't have to be specifically paid to edit or specifically directed to edit.
Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell of the existence of something and what it does. That is considered promotional here, you don't have to be soliciting customers or selling something. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. Interviews, mere reporting of activities, and other materials put out by the subject are not appropriate sources. This is why the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

13:17:02, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Ramkashamalla


Ramkashamalla (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a blog to post our thoughts or experiences, it is an encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Request on 13:42:54, 24 January 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan


Hello, I have a problem with an article. I mistakenly submitted two drafts and was told that, as the first one had not yet been validated, this one would be examined. The problem is that the first draft has nothing to do with the last one (three-four lines versus forty). What can I do to make sure that the second and most recent draft is examined directly? Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bibi at Bibliothèque Marmottan, edit the source of the draft you do not want reviewed and remove the afc submission template. Though one being reviewed will not prejudice the other.Slywriter (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

14:04:01, 24 January 2022 review of submission by Raavimohantydelhi


Raavi Mohanty 14:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

16:32:26, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Popcultr


I'm not sure I understand how Variety - one of the worlds leading entertainment magazines is not a reliable independent source :) Same for Comicsbeat and HLN ( one of the biggest newspapers in Belgium )

Popcultr (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Popcultr, Variety is an interview which means the subject's own words and views are covered. Interviews for this reason are not considered independent secondary sources and do not contribute to notability. WP:THREE independent references that discuss the subject is the simple rule of thumbSlywriter (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

18:51:21, 24 January 2022 review of draft by Puserisrivate


I am an accomplished musician looking to publish my own page, but I have run into a few problems...first, it says I am not citing my sources correctly, and secondly, not sure where I post "

"

Puserisrivate (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)