Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

• This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, visit the Teahouse.
  • For unrelated questions, use the search box or the reference desk.
  • Create a draft via Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• 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.

• Top of page
• Table of Contents
• Today's posts
• Bottom of page

August 13

00:37, 13 August 2024 review of submission by LaurenLL

• LaurenLL (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cory Grosser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I was told to disclose COI which I did on the Cory Grosser article talk page and on my user account. Now, how do I submit the DRAFT to AFC please? Thanks! LaurenLL (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Cory Grosser has been submitted to AfC. David notMD (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

 Declined for reasons stated on the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

08:00, 13 August 2024 review of submission by Rustberg

• Rustberg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Russell Steinberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hired a company to create this Wikipage for me many months ago. It contains errors the company has not corrected in addition to sources that were declined. I would like to try a pass at doing this myself after carefully reading the suggested guidelines for citations. Before I do so, I want to know is it ok to work with this same doc or should I start a new one? Rustberg (talk) 08:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rustberg: Six of one, half-dozen of the other. Doing it clean may be the better option, especially if you're not familiar with assessing sources yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I assume it is a gradual process with several drafts? Or do people who read all the guidelines generally get it right in one pass? Rustberg (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rustberg A paid editor should be capable of creating a draft that is acceptable after a maximum of two submission for review in my opinion. I hope you didn't pay the bill. Please also see WP:SCAM in case they were of that nature. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rustberg: your paid editors should have disclosed that they were paid, but I don't see such a disclosure anywhere?

You also need to be aware that we strongly discourage autobiographies, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes I heard that before about autobiographies. Nevertheless, all my colleagues have Wikipages and find them useful. I'm always asked why I don't have one. Rustberg (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Rustberg Your colleagues don't "have" anything. Wikipedia has articles about them. We don't have "pages" here, we have articles. (an article is a page but not every page is an article). Also see other stuff exists- each draft or article is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet on this volunteer project.

To be very frank, Wikipedia has no interest in whether the subject of an article finds its presence to be useful- our only goal here is to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person, more specifically in this case, a a notable composer.

Be advised that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I actually appreciate your reply and this information. I need to think about it. Thank you. Rustberg (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rustberg: this may seem like a hair-splitting comment, but I'll make it anyway. Your colleagues don't have articles in Wikipedia (or 'Wikipages', as you put it). There may be articles about them in Wikipedia, but they are not 'theirs' in any sense of the word. The reason I make this distinction is so that you are aware from the outset that you have no control over this article once (if) it is published: anyone can edit it within our guidelines and policies, including adding information (appropriately referenced) that you might prefer not to be included there. This is one of the reasons why an article about you may not always be a good thing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out this distinction. And for pointing out that once published, I would have no voice in other people adding to it. I never noticed that as an issue in other composer pages, so it didn't occur to me. Rustberg (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rustberg: without knowing what those other articles are, I can't investigate their provenance, but it's perfectly possible that they were created, and/or have been subsequently edited, by editors with conflicts of interest, who weren't aware of the conflict-of-interest guidelines. With nearly 7m articles, and more being constantly added, things do occasionally slip by us, and older articles in particular may have been created under altogether different rules. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

10:14, 13 August 2024 review of submission by TNM101

• TNM101 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:JSS International School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have a question. The article JSS Private School is approved by wikipedia, however, when I wanted to publish my article on JSS International School, it was declined. I took a look at the sources used in the JSS Private School article, and they are pretty much the same sources used by me. If the same sources establish notability for that article, why doesn't it for mine? TNM101 (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@TNM101: thank you for flagging up JSS Private School. Its sources do not establish notability, and I have tagged it accordingly. (That article is over 10 years old, and may have been created when our review processes and/or notability requirements were more relaxed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok so both the articles are not good enough for wikipedia right? TNM101 (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@TNM101: that's right, at least on the face of it. The subtle difference is that, in order to be accepted, a draft needs to show that sources exist which prove notability. (Yours currently doesn't, and therefore has been declined.) Whereas for an article already existing in the encyclopaedia, where the current sources do not prove notability, in order to propose its deletion one must first carry out a search to see if more and better sources exist elsewhere, which could be used to establish notability. In other words, the burden of proof is reversed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation and for giving your valuable time for answering my question TNM101 (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing, @TNM101 I have not checked the draft. However I find the other worthy of discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSS Private School I do not believe that there is coverage to support retention. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

10:17, 13 August 2024 review of submission by 183.83.146.106

• 183.83.146.106 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Prithi Nambiar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

while environment is a matter of great concern, there are not many writers in this realm. dr prithi has been doing considerable work and has all the merits to be known to a wider audience. 183.83.146.106 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. That isn't a question – did you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid that none of the no-doubt estimable things you say about Prithi above are of any direct relevance to Wikipedia. Notability is a fundamental concept in Wikipedia, and is different from any of fame, importance, popularity, influence, creativity, or innovation, though it often goes with some of those.

In short it is the answer to the question "Has enough independent reliably published material been published about the subject to base an article on?" Nothing written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates counts toward this, and nor does anything based on an interview or press release from the subject or their associates.

You should evaluate every source you are contemplating using against the triple criteria in WP:42. If it does not meet all three criteria, then it cannot contribute to establishing notability, and without notability, nobody can successfully write an article.

remember that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

14:35, 13 August 2024 review of submission by MGS98

• MGS98 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi

I am having trouble getting this accepted due to references. Is anyone able to help with getting this fixed so that it can be accepted?

Thank you! MGS98 (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@MGS98: we need to see significant coverage (ie. beyond just passing mentions or routine business reporting) of the organisation, in multiple secondary sources. And then the draft needs to be essentially a summary of what such sources have said, not just what the organisation itself would like to say about itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

16:55, 13 August 2024 review of submission by Morganreale121

• Morganreale121 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:M7 Security Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not related to this subject matter I am learning how to edit on Wikipedia - I need to see what is allowed and not allowed to become a better editor - any help would be appreciated Morganreale121 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Morganreale121: Your only source is Wikipedia, which we cannot cite. No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Morganreale121 You claim that you personally created the logo of the Group and personally own the copyright to it. Either you improperly claim the copyright of the logo or you are associated with this organization. Which is it? 331dot (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Morganreale121, if your goal is to learn how to edit, I suggest starting with much smaller and easier tasks - creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia!

You have a tutorial link on your talk page which would be a good place to start. You may also be interested in adding citations to articles, or seeing whether you can clarify confusing statements in articles. First of all, though, make sure to answer 331dot above. After that, I wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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) 17:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

19:35, 13 August 2024 review of submission by 77.65.108.117

• 77.65.108.117 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lika Leong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is the stuff in this artcle are alright? I mean. Do there's anything that I can this article? 77.65.108.117 (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We can't cite YouTube unless the video is produced by an outlet we'd consider to have editorial oversight (such as The A.V. Club) and is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. LinkedIn is useless for notability. And your "references", even if they were usable, are malformatted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

21:49, 13 August 2024 review of submission by Jackson Ettica

• Jackson Ettica (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bree Fraser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It would mean so much to her, please could you tell me how I can improve it. Jackson Ettica (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jackson Ettica: This draft has been rejected for failure to address reviewers' concerns and will not be examined further. We don't cite Facebook (no editorial oversight). We don't cite anything the subject has created or any entity they are directly involved with (connexion to subject). Anything a reasonable person could challenge must be sourced to a third-party, in-depth source with editorial oversight that explicitly corroborates it. We do not allow extended quotes from a source. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 22:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

August 14

01:36, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Walijordan

• Walijordan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DeAna Fai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Requesting assistance with all editors to get one of my articles accepted. The editor that rejected the article notated that there were only mentions of the subject in question however, majority of the major articles focus on the subject. Additional articles have been added to support notability of the subject to include an award winning film the artist has original music in. I would like assistance from established editors to issue proper corrections and additions for article approval. Thank you. Walijordan (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Walijordan: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked as "critiques" in my signature):

• We can't use https://www.sheenmagazine.com/artist-deana-fai-talks-her-upcoming-musical-releases-podcast-and-television-show/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're leery of role/absent bylines because they're commonly used to publish content that bypassed the editor's desk.)
• https://www.brides.com/tatyana-ali-husband-vaughn-rasberry-8425223 is a non-sequitur. A source that doesn't so much as mention the subject of an article can't realistically be used as a source for that article. Same goes for https://pop-culturalist.com/exclusive-interview-jesse-kove-talks-the-holiday-proposal-plan-working-with-tatyana-ali-his-favorite-traditions-and-more/ and https://www.longbeachblacknews.com/countdown-to-christmas-with-patrick-faucette-in-lifetimes-the-holiday-proposal-plan-on-12-25/ .
• We can't use https://allhiphop.com/music/singer-songwriter-deana-fai-an-inspiring-artist-success-story/?expand_article=1 (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this?
• " " " https://www.dailypress.com/2015/01/23/bethel-graduate-lands-a-song-on-my-favorite-five-movie-soundtrack/ (" "). " "; " " "?
• We can't use https://stylemagazine.com/news/2020/apr/20/back-her-rootsloni-love-quarantine-talent-show-att/ (unknown provenance) and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (too sparse).
• https://thisis50.com/2022/10/13/deana-fai-features-dunlap-exclusive-in-official-music-video-me-and-mine/ is 404-compliant; the error message given seems to suggest the website's been misconfigured. Thisis50.com is generally not a good source in any event, generally publishing churnalism.
• https://earmilk.com/2023/01/12/deana-fai-delivers-holiday-treat-christmas-love-via-festive-film-catfish-christmas/ seems OK.
• https://ew.com/tv/lifetime-christmas-movies-2023-schedule/ is a non-sequitur.
• We can't use https://www.mylifetime.com/movies/the-holiday-proposal-plan (no editorial oversight). If she is properly credited for the film, you don't need to cite that she did music for it (reading the credits list verifies that), and if she isn't credited you would need a source that isn't the company putting out the movie she recorded a track for. (We also do not cite fiction of any sort, and this includes non-documentary movies.)
• https://earmilk.com/news/deana-fai-lands-lifetime-tv-soundtrack-placement-with-christmas-love/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Compared to the other Earmilk source, this one spends far less time discussing Fai.
• We can't use https://hiphopsince1987.com/2024/music/deana-fai-a-playback-singer-in-a-kismet-holiday-directed-by-chazitear-and-produced-by-chuck-and-bree-west/ (no editorial oversight). Hiphipsince1987.com has a tendency to act as a black-hat SEO outlet.
• We can't use https://songsweekly.com/2024/07/deana-fai-an-essence-film-festival-award-with-a-kismet-holiday/ (no editorial oversight). Songs Weekly includes a disclaimer as to the accuracy of their articles.
• " " " https://songswire.com/a-kismet-holiday-an-essence-film-festival-win-for-deana-fai/ (" " "). Songswire " " " " " " " " " ".
• " " " https://grammyweekly.com/a-kismet-holiday-premieres-at-essence-film-festival-and-deana-fai-triumphs-with-christmas-love-and-ready-for-christmas-in-the-jury-award-winning-f/ (" " "). Grammy Weekly " " " " " " " " " ".
• We can't use https://www.nicelyentertainment.com/catalog/the-holiday-proposal-plan/ (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it's a non-sequitur. We don't cite movie trailers or synopses from the production company.
• https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_holiday_proposal_plan is useless for notability (wrong subject). Again, if she's been properly credited, you don't need a cite for claims that she worked on it. Rotten Tomatoes is really only useful for film reviews and aggregation thereof, and is of limited use for biographies.

You have one usable source; the rest is junk. One source is not enough to support an article on any subject, let alone one on a biography of a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

01:52, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Mohasafa00

• Mohasafa00 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Holiday Proposal Plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm a little confused as to why this article wasn't published. Another article followed the same protocol and it was published but this one did not. I have updated the draft with more esteemed publications surrounding the title although I don't believe it was necessary. I'm asking for help with this article. Mohasafa00 (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

05:15, 14 August 2024 review of submission by ClassifiedBagel

• ClassifiedBagel (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Suicide of Gleb Korablev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to add more references. How do I add more references? I'm a PS5 user. ClassifiedBagel (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:REFB for how to add references inline.

Distractify is not regarded as a reliable source: see WP:RSP

I cannot see the portalvirtualreality.ru source - it gives me a 404 - but unless it is a discussion about the suicide, published by a publisher with a reputation for editorial control, and fact-checking, then it is worthless for Wikipedia.

Unless you can find several sources which all meet the triple criteria of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of the subject (see WP:42) then you will be unable to establish that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. and every minute you spend or have spent on trying to write about it will be time wasted.

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) 17:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

08:32, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Ricarda.O.Huch

• Ricarda.O.Huch (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Clemens Apprich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Feedback for submission English translation: Page Clemens Apprich Englisch Ricarda.O.Huch (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

You have submitted it for a review. As stated at the top of the draft, there is a significant backlog so it will take time for someone to get to it. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ricarda.O.Huch While you wait, you can disclose your connection to Mr. Apprich, which you must have as you took an image of him and he posed for you. See WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

09:33, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Karnish 16

• Karnish 16 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Affinity Global (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have done research and added reference as well but where am I going wrong ? Karnish 16 (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Karnish 16 Are you associated with Affinity Global?

You are summarizing the routine business activities of the company, not significant coverage in independent reliable sources that discusses how the company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company as they see it. Press releases are not independent sources. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @331dot No i am not , I am working with Justdial limited company . Karnish 16 (talk) 10:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So Affinity Global is your client? 331dot (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

No , not in any ways connected Karnish 16 (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

13:02, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Phenomenon 10

• Phenomenon 10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David Kahn (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

The second version of the article I submitted meets your criteria for verifiable, reliable sources (please see reference section of article). The sources are (also) published, reliable, secondary, and independent of the article subject.

Why, therefore, specifically, was the article rejected?

Thank you.

Phenomenon 10 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Phenomenon 10: the referencing doesn't sufficiently support the draft contents, with some of information either unreferenced or referenced with citations that don't actually reliably verify it. Many of the sources also seem to be primary, which is probably why the reviewer felt they didn't establish notability. (I'm only speculating here, as I wasn't the one who reviewed this one myself, so if you want further elaboration you should ask the reviewer directly.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

18:31, 14 August 2024 review of submission by IFDProductions

• IFDProductions (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Quacktastic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

declined for just saying reason for advertisement when that is not the case, I am certainly not getting paid to do this and I just want this page documented. Can you give me a real response and not an automated message on to why or what I need to do to get this page accurate. IFDProductions (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@IFDProductions: Regardless of whether the page is promotional, we don't cite YouTube unless the video is produced by an outlet we'd consider to have editorial oversight (such as Kerrang!) and is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel, and anything the subject themselves puts out is useless for notability (connexion to subject). We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that have discussed the subject at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to editorial oversight and fact-checking. Without sources of that calibre we can't even begin to discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sandbox Submission

I recently have finished most of my Sandbox, and I have wanted to submit it, but there is no place to submit it at! I have checked different articles on Wikipedia on how to submit it, but so far no luck! Can someone help me? Xuppu (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears that you have now successfully submitted it. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Timtrent managed to add a submit button Xuppu (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

21:12, 14 August 2024 review of submission by RNGHit

• RNGHit (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Aimsey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I'm pretty sure I linked somewhat independent sources to show notability of the person. Please let me know if I need to include more independent citations. Sorry for any inconvience! (And sorry if I misspelled anything :( ) manwithafriend1 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

See the comment that @MarcGarver left on your draft. ColinFine (talk) 10:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

22:06, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

• Kalinators (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I cannot see the submit button after the latest achievement by the subject (me) and multiple media reporting about the subject (me) and the links were added. Please submit and approve the draft as I don't see the submit button. Kalinators (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Observation: The only change to the draft, since it was rejected on 5 August, was the addition of a reference to a wixsite. —C.Fred (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, the wixsite is there not to prove notability, but to prove the factuality of the subject leading the ranking in the Ulm Backgammon Open yearly.

If you look more closely, you will notice the added last paragraph combined with 3 seperate independent website reporting on the subject's achievement of the Master M3 title. Kalinators (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, the rejection reason in the first place was a personal bias from one editor directed towards the subject, hence it was not a truthful review. Kalinators (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kalinators The submit button no longer appears because the draft has been rejected, which means it will not be considered further. You should focus your efforts on a personal website or social media where you can tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Then you can add it back, or I will have to create and submit a new one. As you can see, there are now 10 independent media having reported about the subject. So it clearly must be on wikipedia. Kalinators (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@331dot Kalinators (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Kalinators If you have fundamentally changed the nature of the draft and addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you should first appeal to the reviewer that rejected the draft. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

As stated above, the editor who rejected it multiple times has a personal bias against the subject. This is why I kindly requested another editor to approve it. Kalinators (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That the reviewer did not tell you what you want to hear does not mean that they have a personal bias against you.

You have not demonstrated that you are notable as Wikipedia uses the word. A runner up to a youth competition is not likely to draw the significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Again, I advise you to abandon this effort. Typically, articles are written by independent editors, not the subject themselves. That's the best indicator of notability- a person trying to force the issue and do it themselves is not usually successful- I've never seen it happen in my many years here(though it probably has, it is rare if it does). 331dot (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go back 2 months when I first posted it. I posted links to the reports of the tournaments and stuff like that, then someone told me that references should be independent media, so I posted the two that were there already, but then someone told me they need 3, so 1 more.

Last month, a main Stuttgart media wrote an article about me (source no. 1 in the draft), so I added it and resubmitted. The same editor who had in the first place approved the other 2 articles, jumped in to say that they don't approve them now. So they were contradicting themselves. Then the personally biased CFA jumped in and refused to review it, rejecting it directly.

Anyway, since then, a further achievement has been added to the draft, and a further 3 media reporting about the subject. This was added to the draft and a new one was created to be submitted. CFA was quick to decline it, stating as a reason "No improvements since last decline at Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon_player).".

However, if you look at it, you will notice that a whole paragraph was added reporting on the recently achieved mastership title, with the 3 new independent media reporting about the latter, and also the Bulgarian news agency, which had in the past already reported on the subject's successes, so was already in the sources.

So basically, if you look at it, you will see that the editors' comments just don't agree with reality. Kalinators (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

23:49, 14 August 2024 review of submission by Addresstour

• Addresstour (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • ADDRESS TOUR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello dear! I would like to publish article about my business. Please provide any instruction to publish professionally and correct. And please explain reason of rejection publishing article. Addresstour (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

• Editor has been blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

August 15

05:55, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Omworld786

• Omworld786 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jagrati Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We want to Publish This article But Not Getting Approval How we can Approved this article Kindly Guide us Omworld786 (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Omworld786: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.

Who is "we" in your question/comment?

Why have you created three different drafts on this subject?

And what is your relationship with the subject? This has been queried on your talk page earlier, but you have not responded to the query. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

09:02, 15 August 2024 review of submission by 102.90.58.104

• 102.90.58.104 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:King Of New Age (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please what should I do? 102.90.58.104 (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You can return to your original account and get unblocked. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into it 102.90.65.219 (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Please note that you are not allowed to edit even when logged out of your blocked account. The block is personal to you, not to a particular account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this, I need to understand the issue. Thank you for making out your time. 105.113.12.102 (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

11:01, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

• Kalinators (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kalin Stefanov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello all. This article clearly requires to be on wikipedia, as the subject is a succesful sportsperson who has been reported my multiple independent media in his country of origin and country of citizenship. The draft was rejected multiple times on the accusation "You cannot write an article about yourself", however, this was not after a fair and honest review of the article, hence it was rejected on no basis. Please kindly review, resubmit, and approve the article. Best regards. Kalinators (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

1) That's not why it was rejected and 2) nothing is "required" to be on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kalinators: your autobio was rejected. You then created another one, which was rejected. You're now badgering editors to review the rejected draft, which is tendentious. All this to promote yourself on Wikipedia, which is not allowed in the first place. I would ask you to drop this matter now, or risk getting blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Mate, I am not promoting myself on Wikipedia, I am adding an article that fits in wikipedia's guidelines. CLEARLY.

Whoever rejects it, does not do a proper review, as simple as that, they just reject it because it's me writing about myself. Without an actual valid reason. Kalinators (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You clearly are, given that every single one of your edits has to do with you. What would you call that if not self-promotion? You evidently aren't here to help help build an encyclopaedia. But fine, if you want to carry on and run the risk of sanctions, on your head be it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The reviewer who rejected the draft stated "No improvements since last decline". This was not true, as additional information about the subject, plus additional multiple independent media reports about the subject, were added. Additionally, 2 months ago, in the first review, I was told that as soon as 3 independent media have reported about the subject, it will be approved. Furthermore, an editor who approved 2 sources in the first review, came back to review the updated draft as soon as the 3rd source was added, and rejected it because apparently the sources he had approved before, were not good enough. He also stated that a main Stuttgart newspaper is not independent, clearly untrue. We come to now, when the draft has 6 independent media reports, plus a few additional links which prove factuality. All this comes to show that that the review was improper or violated policy, so I kindly ask for a consensus that the review was improper or violated policy. Kalinators (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You have not said which policies were violated. Please provide diffs or other evidence to support your claims, specifically where it was said "as soon as 3 independent media reports about the subject it will be approved"- which is absolutely not the case, so if you were told that, the person who did was in error. I'm trying to help you, to get you to see what you are doing wrong and what assumptions you have that are wrong, but you aren't listening because it's not what you want to hear. Yet another reason why editing about yourself is problematic- it's difficult to hear criticism of your own work when its about you. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no valid reason for the decline listed. The reason listed was "no improvements since last decline", which was visibly untrue, as I clarified that additional information about the subject, plus additional multiple independent media reports about the subject, were added. Unfortunately I cannot show you the discussion from 2 months ago, but I remember that it was @DoubleGrazing and @Qcne both saying that, after approving 2 media reports, the response from both was "Ok, we have two, so we need one more and then it will be approved". Later on, Double grazing was the first to reject it, contradicting his own comments from before while stating that the initial 2 media were not good, adding that the third one, a main Stuttgart newspaper, is not independent, again, clearly untrue. Kalinators (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

If (purely for the sake of the argument) you have two acceptable sources and we say that's not enough, it doesn't mean that if more are added then the draft must be accepted. Especially as you seem to have a rather fundamental misunderstanding of what is an acceptable source. (And I really can't be bothered to go yet another round over the sources.)

The bottom line is, you can wikilawyer about this all you want, but it doesn't suddenly make a rejected draft about a non-notable subject appear in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you once said that source X and source Y are good, but one more is needed. Then, once another was added, you backed off saying that source X and source Y are not good. This is a clearly not neutral review, as if it were, you wouldn't contradict yourself. The article is about a notable subject, clearly proven. Kalinators (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not- a runner up (i.e. someone who did not win) a youth competition in a niche gaming event is not getting the coverage needed for an article- which must go beyond merely documenting your activities. You gravely misunderstand "neutral" as well as what it is we do here in general. You are just wasting your time at this point and I highly advise you to abandon this effort voluntarily before you are forced to with a block. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I won't be the one to make it, as I'm too deep into this. But that's the course you are on. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, your boss will fire you after I report your activities to him.

The article MUST and WILL be on wikipedia. So, you meet world youth runners-up every day on the street?

It is not a "niche gaming event", whatever this means, it is a world championship. I know you are envious, but sorry, not everyone can go to a final of a world championship. As I said and you know, the media will not report my credit card number or stuff like that, they can only report my activities and achievements. [Blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising redacted] Kalinators (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

This blatant advertising will only get you blocked. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

(Blocked.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

So you are threatening someone and blatantly advertising? I am quite sure none of our bosses care about what are we doing on Wikipedia. Do you really wanted to be blocked? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant the guy's wikipedia boss. Kalinators (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There isn't one. Wikipedia does not operate that way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The editor is indeffed, no TPA. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

11:44, 15 August 2024 review of submission by WikiWonka888!

• WikiWonka888! (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Siegel & McGehee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article about filmmaking duo Siegel & McGehee was intended to replace sub-standard stub articles, for individual filmmakers Scott McGehee and David Siegel. Can someone help to reset those two pages as "redirects" to here to complete this effort? WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiWonka888! This help desk is to ask about drafts, not existing articles, you want the main Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

thank you! WikiWonka888! (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

12:05, 15 August 2024 review of submission by MorganKBrowne

• MorganKBrowne (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Enterpryze (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i want to write an article that helps inform peeople about Enterpryze MorganKBrowne (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@MorganKBrowne: if you do, don't do it like that; this draft has been deleted as promotional.

What is your relationship to Enterpryze? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Im the CEO. first time creating an article on wiki MorganKBrowne (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@MorganKBrowne: thank you. In that case, you have a conflict of interest which must be disclosed. I'll post a message on your talk page with instructions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

MorganKBrowne "Inform people about Enterpryze" is exactly what promotion is. Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

12:39, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Pagemaker14

• Pagemaker14 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I get my drafts accepted? Pagemaker14 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Pagemaker14 I think you meant to put Draft:Andrew Deliberis, your only draft, in your request. You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It got declined. Pagemaker14 (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Pagemaker14: yes, I declined it, because it is completely unreferenced with zero evidence of notability. (There are two alleged citations, but both return 404 errors.)

You appear to have subsequently resubmitted the draft without any attempt at improving it. Please don't do that, as it suggests that you're unable or unwilling to improve the draft, and this may result in it being rejected outright. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

13:00, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Jfowler4368

• Jfowler4368 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Niricson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hoping to get my draft approved. I have made the edits as requested by the reviewer, but it will not let me resubmit for review. Thanks! Jfowler4368 (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jfowler4368: there is a blue button at the bottom of the previous decline notice, which says 'resubmit'; click on that.

Having said which, the sources are insufficient for demonstrating notability per WP:NCORP, so this draft would still be declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

13:45, 15 August 2024 review of submission by YunusEmret

• YunusEmret (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yunus Emre Tekin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, i cant change the title as The Religious Syncretism in Ephesus: A Confluence of Cults i have no iddia how the topic name added as "Draft:Yunus_Emre_Tekin" i was try to add new content but now i see the title is not The Religious Syncretism in Ephesus: A Confluence of Cults. How can i change the title? Thank you for your help. YunusEmret (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@YunusEmret: your draft has been deleted, so there is nothing to be done here, but for future reference, changes to page titles are effected by moving the page to a new title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft titles are also provisional at best. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

14:13, 15 August 2024 review of submission by ArtInspiration4all

• ArtInspiration4all (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Prince of Peace Painting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The majority of citations are from well-known third-party news organizations. Can someone help me edit this? ArtInspiration4all (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@ArtInspiration4all: the media outlets are secondary sources, but when it's the artist herself talking about her work, that makes it a primary source. We need to see what entirely independent and reliable sources have chosen of their own volition to say about this painting. (Also, The Mail is a deprecated source and mustn't be cited.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay I removed the deprecated source and added primary sources to the article as requested. ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@ArtInspiration4all: we don't need more primary sources, we need more secondary ones. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry. I thought more primary sources were needed. ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I added additional secondary sources as requested ArtInspiration4all (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

PS: Your user page states that you are a paid editor, but the disclosure doesn't make it clear to what subjects this refers. Is it to do with the subject of this draft? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@ArtInspiration4all: An alternate method is to not create a new article at all and use the edit request wizard instead to specify what information and sources be added to an existing article on a related topic, such as Akiane#Prince of Peace. Then, if the topic gains more coverage later on, it can eventually be split or spun-off into its own article.

Again, just my opinion; another Wikipedia editor may have a differing view. Thanks for reading, and good luck. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

18:49, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Elephant1997

• Elephant1997 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wildlife Works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I would like help in understanding why this page got rejected. The citations are from independent, secondary, and high-authority sources such as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The articles discuss the subject in depth (are not just brief mentions) and discuss negative aspects about the company and carbon market. Elephant1997 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Elephant1997 Have yu asked Jamiebuba who declined this draft? If not I recommend that you do first. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi - yes I messaged @Jamiebuba and he archived my message without responding. Have you actually read the sources? The NYT, WSJ, and United Nations articles are entirely about the organization and / or how its founder went about setting up the company. I've extensively reviewed the notability page, and all of the sources meet the criteria. Thanks Elephant1997 (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The first few sources mention Wildlife Works, but do not say very much about it - they are about individuals associated with it. I haven't looked further, but if they are all like that then you have not provided the requisite set of reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject to establish that the company is notable in Wikipedia's sense. See WP:42 for the criteria which every source must pass in order to contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@ColinFine Thanks for your response. Been off for a while. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

18:56, 15 August 2024 review of submission by Jimboson

• Jimboson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eliyahu Chaim Meisel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am reaching out because I do not think the reasoning given for declining this submission came from a genuine place. This is one of the most well-known rabbis of the past 200 years, known by all different sects of Orthodox Jews. I think it should be looked at again by someone else. Jimboson (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jimboson The reason given was a paucity of correct referencing. That someone is one of the most well-known rabbis of the past 200 years is neither here nor there, because the references do not show it. If he is that well known, please find references which meet the statement in the decline notice.

On another matter, "I do not think the reasoning given for declining this submission came from a genuine place." is not appropriate. You, we, any editor at all, are required to assume good faith at all times. Instead of expressing this thought you might have held your peace. This is a lack of civility and is likely to make some excellent reviewers think twice about reviewing this draft. This is shooting yourself in the foot.

I can also infer all sorts of things from your statement, as can others. More than one of those things is, at best, distasteful, for more than one reason. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. Stated on their user talk page that they were making unfounded accusations of racial/religious prejudice. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

20:18, 15 August 2024 review of submission by EkRahgir

• EkRahgir (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dr. Mahendra Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I add this person on Wikipedia, He's Genuine and popular in field of homeopath in India, Bihar & Kolkata specially. Please suggest. I can add more references EkRahgir (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You can't, rejected means that resubmssion is not possible. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Neither "genuine" nor "popular" is of any relevance to determining notability as Wikipedia means it: this is basically, "Is there enough reliable independent material available to base an article on?", remembering that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

August 16

05:50, 16 August 2024 review of submission by 2806:2A0:B18:880C:94D3:1B45:E11E:5143

• 2806:2A0:B18:880C:94D3:1B45:E11E:5143 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Diagnostikare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please let us know where we became non-compliant with the article so that we can make the necessary amendments? 2806:2A0:B18:880C:94D3:1B45:E11E:5143 (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Who is "we"?

If you mean the original author of this draft, then the answer to your question is that blocked users are not allowed to edit from any account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

why was my article rejected???

I worked hard on my piece of writing. Let me share my take on the rats of NYC with the world!! >-< SKIBIDINOMETAMER (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Uhhuh. Carry on like that, and you will be blocked soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Hey, I must be clairvoyant! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

No. Find somewhere else to post funny junk. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

14:28, 16 August 2024 review of submission by Lnplohar 388

• Lnplohar 388 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gadiya lohar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please my article are true please help Lnplohar 388 (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Lnplohar 388 The truthfulness of the information is not at issue. It is completely unsourced and you have not demonstrated notability. This is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is highly recommended that you first spend much time editing existing articles to gain experience and knowledge as to how Wikipedia works and what is expected of article content. Please also consider using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This draft is also within the scope of a contentious topic. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

16:22, 16 August 2024 review of submission by TornadoSpeciakost

• TornadoSpeciakost (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Devon blue bread (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this getting deleted? TornadoSpeciakost (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoSpeciakost Because it's a mixture of a copyright violation and made up stuff. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

18:51, 16 August 2024 review of submission by A.reymn

• A.reymn (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Who are the Khitays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Bonjour, Ma récente soumission n’a pas été acceptée. Mais je continue à modifier, selon vos instructions, mon article en complétant les références (citations) dans le Sandbox où se trouve mon article. Je souhaite vous soumettre à nouveau cet article une fois les modifications terminées. Ma question est de savoir si je peux vous soumettre l’article directement depuis le Sanbox ? Merci beaucoup de votre réponse. A.reymn (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Ceci est le Wikipédia anglais. Veuillez communiquer en anglais. (this is the English Wikipedia, please communicate in English) 331dot (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

CFA has added a submission button, but in my opinion, this will not be accepted, as it reads like an essay. A Wikipedia article summarises what reliable sources say on a subject, nothing more. It should never present any argument or conclusion, except to summarise an argument or conclusion wholly contained within one of the sources. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your opinion. I will try to modify and turn it into a compilation of different sources instead of essay. A.reymn (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@A.reymn: I added the submission button to your sandbox. C F A 💬 19:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

21:46, 16 August 2024 review of submission by OliveRacc

• OliveRacc (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lifesteal SMP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help from qualified Wikipedians who know about Lifesteal and are dedicated to make the articles top quality. OliveRacc (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@OliveRacc The draft has been rejected. This means that, as written, it is not a top quality draft. Wikipedia has been improved by not accepting it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

August 17

Sourcing questions

EDIT: Uh, nevermind I guess I passed review so I guess my sources were ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urchincrawler (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm working on this draft, but it's the first article I've created that's medicine related. I tried to use reliable sources (NHS, stuff from PubMed, NIH, etc.), but there are some cases where I used non medical sources. In the history section, I used a law journal, in the advocacy section I linked to some advocacy groups to prove that advocacy supported those positions, and in the nomenclature section I provided some arguments on why parents of intersex people may prefer DSD using a paper writing by a professor with an interest in intersex topics. Is that ok? Or do all sources have to be medical even for more historical and social info?

Additionally, I was wondering if more local government health departments would be acceptable sources, or does it have to be strictly national sources like the NHS and CDC. For example, I used a document from the State of Victoria Department of Health and Human Services. Is that ok?

Ultimately I'd just really appreciate if someone could take a quick look through my sources since I want to make sure it's up to par. Thanks.

Urchincrawler (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Urchincrawler Accepted by a reviewer. Well done. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

01:03, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Injusticegod

• Injusticegod (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Injusticegod/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi iknow an artist and i need someone from help desk to publish hm Injusticegod (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Injusticegod I know several people, none of whom qualify for an article. If you think your acquaintance does please read HELP:YFA. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

02:58, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Jackhh2004

• Jackhh2004 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Lanon Baccam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is very worth publishing, in my opinion, and I want help making it good enough to get published. Jackhh2004 (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jackhh2004  Declined This is a candidate, and fails WP:NPOL 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

04:18, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Mohasafa00

• Mohasafa00 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Holiday Proposal Plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have updated the draft with more esteemed publications surrounding the title. I'm kindly asking for assistance from other editors for this title. Mohasafa00 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mohasafa00 You have submitted it for review. Please wait patiently for that review. In the meantime you should continue to improve the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

06:25, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Ribinshad

• Ribinshad (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Weggor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi, can you help me with this, I want to write in wikipidia, this is a new phone brand am currently using when I search on wiki I didn't find about it that why I added this brand, is the details I given wrong or the writing style of mine is wrong , what is the issue, can you help me with this Ribinshad (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ribinshad: the draft is very promotional and offers no evidence that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms.

And once a draft has been rejected (as opposed to merely declined) you shouldn't resubmit it anymore. You may discuss the rejection with the reviewer who rejected it, but looks like you haven't done that.

Do you have a relationship of some kind with this business? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

09:23, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Apnswami

• Apnswami (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:APNSwami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please advise what other things do you expect for acceptance. All the information provided has a sufficient external link and I am surprised that this is rejected. Apnswami (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing more you can do, rejection means that resubmission is not possible at this time. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Apnswami: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• https://www.sriahobilamuttmysore.in/ap.html is 404-compliant.
• https://www.thehindu.com/society/faith/echoes-of-the-divine-bell/article30809577.ece is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of APN Swami.
• I can't assess https://dhinasari.com/spiritual-section/84499-yamunai-thuraivar-thirumuttram-part-1-historic-tamil-novel-by-sri-apn-swami-on-atthi-varadhar-and-kanchi-brahmothsavam.html (language barrier). Google Translate does not work.
• https://www.indica.today/research/conference/rasanubhava-of-kanchi-varadaraja-perumal-brahmotsavam/ is a non-sequitur. (A source that does not so much as mention the subject of an article can't be used as a source on that subject.)
• We can't use https://tnrajbhavantour.tn.gov.in/tnrb-website-archive/Archives/Website1621/Speeches/2018/Sp080718-2.pdf (gov't document) and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (too sparse).

None of your sources that I can assess are any good, which is why the draft has been rejected for failure to address reviewers' concerns and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

14:17, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Kshitij Vats 001

• Kshitij Vats 001 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Anogi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Taking a lot of time Kshitij Vats 001 (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kshitij Vats 001: you submitted this a week ago. Don't know if you noticed, but it says on top of the draft "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,594 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

20:00, 17 August 2024 review of submission by Shaansaren

• Shaansaren (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Priyanka Chahar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would like to know what this message from the article reviewer means.....not clear how they pass WP:NACTOR?.

Is it regarding the hyperlinks i used or citations i gave?? Shaansaren (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Shaansaren! I think your main problem is that your draft is only a couple of sentences long, and tells us almost nothing about your subject. Your sources are also both interviews, which we don't accept as evidence of notability. Have you read through Your First Article? If not, I suggest you start there. If you've read that, then move on to WP:NACTOR (which will tell you what we're looking for to establish an actor is notable) and WP:42, our 'golden rule' for sources (which will tell you what you need in a source). Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

August 18

04:36, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 122.52.65.67

• 122.52.65.67 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tropical Storm Maria (2024) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello HurricaneEdgar submit the draft can review the draft? 122.52.65.67 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

04:41, 18 August 2024 review of submission by SDsharkie

• SDsharkie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • This whole thing confuses me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry, my article on a musician in the metal band Dark Angel got declined by an editor who says its not worthy of wikipedia but this musician is already listed in wikipedia through the band and her prior band and most of the article is valid, the editor just cited issues with a few of the sources, not the majority. So, why decline the whole article and how do you fix this? I also do not know how to link to the existing wikipedia page articles that exist, but since the musician is already listed in wikipedia in a couple spots and clearly as worthy as the other musicians in the band, not sure how it can be deemed not worthy of wikipedia??

SDsharkie (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Laura Christine StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SDsharkie! I've just gone through your draft and named some references so your ref list isn't encumbered by multiples of the same thing - giant ref lists, especially with duplicated sources, make life harder for reviewers and thus your draft takes longer to be reviewed. More info in WP:REFNAME if you add any more sources!

The thing with biographies of living people is they have incredibly strict requirements - see WP:BLP for more information. Among other things, this means that every single statement must be sourced. You can only use interviews for basic things like her name, her birthdate, that kind of stuff. To show she's notable, you're looking for sources that fit Wikipedia's 'golden rule', WP:42. In short, you need significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Part of the second criteria, reliable sources, requires the source to have editorial oversight (for example, not a blog) and come from a reputable publisher (some places will publish anything if they're paid, so they are not reliable). The reviewer has said Encyclopedia Metallum is not reliable because it's user-generated, YouTube is also not reliable (no oversight, not a reputable publisher), and interviews are all primary sources. This is excellent advice for you and also, unfortunately, means most of your current sources can't be used. I suggest having a go at replacing all the sources that have been flagged and trying again. Your other option is to remove any information that doesn't have an acceptable source, but I think you'd be better off replacing the sources since without them most of the draft would have to be deleted.

Sorry I don't have better news for you. Please feel free to ask any further questions and someone - maybe me, maybe another of our lovely AfC helpdesk volunteers - will be back to answer soon. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this detailed response. I did edit and add new sources, and remove ones that were not up to snuff, and removed just a little bit of the article to make it fully credible and cited properly. I do hope this gets accepted, as it is my first article and I worked hard to try to make a good one! SDsharkie (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome @SDsharkie! If your article isn't accepted this time around, please feel free to come to my talk page and I'll do a more thorough source check for you. Good luck and happy editing to you! StartGrammarTime (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

07:48, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65

• 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vihar Exports (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

local public like this Company, more then 5000 farmer helping 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

7 year helping local farmer 2409:40F2:F:F988:A596:C3EB:6A73:7F65 (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever that this company is notable, not in this attempt, and not in any of the previous ones. If you keep spamming, this title will be protected.

Also, please note that once your user account has been blocked, you are not allowed to register new accounts, nor to continue editing from an IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

And I will delete your spam post you've just added to a new thread below. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

07:58, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 24.101.104.246

• 24.101.104.246 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Leibniz Series enhancement for first graders. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well ... my article was turned down for lack of a reference. But I made no statement in the article that was not "common" knowledge. Everyone on the planet who has any interest at all in the history of the number Pi is aware of the Liebniz series. And that is why I did not give a reference to it. There are TONS of other articles in Wikipedia that I could refer to. If I choose one of those articles already accepted by Wikipedia, will my article then be accepted. Was there any reason (other than lack of a reference) that my article was rejected? If that was the only reason then I will go back and put in a reference. I obviously cannot give proof that a teacher 100 years ago presented this to his second grade class -- so I can just eliminate that fact from the article and let the numbers speak for themselves. This is an important contribution to the body of human knowledge because most articles regarding the Liebniz series do not mention the power of averaging that this article illustrates. 24.101.104.246 (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not a viable encyclopaedia article draft, this is more like a personal essay or exposition, and completely unreferenced at that. With all due respect, we are not interested in your reflections on some mathematical problem, we want to see what reliable and independent published sources have said about a subject, appropriately summarised and referenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

14:54, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Perfectcheck373

• Perfectcheck373 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kelly Cooney Cilella (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article had actual information and reliable sources, unfortunately it declined for no apparent reason, can someone help me tweak the article, so I can submit it again. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Perfectcheck373: There is no evidence that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Her LinkedIn is neither reliable nor independent. This is an interview, a primary source, and does not count towards notability. This is another interview. C F A 💬 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Note that this article has very likely been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user who has attempted to create this article in the past [1]. User reported to SPI [2] Barry Wom (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that account tried to create the article, but was blocked indefinitely. Perfectcheck373 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocked 331dot (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

17:17, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 103.138.11.0

• 103.138.11.0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wireless & Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan (WISPAP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WISPAP has been instrumental in representing the interests of wireless and internet service providers across the country, advocating for fair policies, and fostering innovation and competition in the industry. Given the relevance and impact of our association on the telecom sector, I am surprised that an article about WISPAP has not yet been included in Wikipedia.Could you kindly provide insights into why WISPAP is not featured on Wikipedia? If there are specific criteria that need to be met for our association to be considered for inclusion, I would appreciate any guidance or recommendations on how we can fulfill those requirements.Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response 103.138.11.0 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced, and summarizes routine activities.

You must disclose your relationship with this organization, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Remember to log in when posting. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

17:33, 18 August 2024 review of submission by 136.55.28.55

• 136.55.28.55 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Patrick Bet-David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The reviewer said the references where unreliable sources. MSNBC, Fox News, CNBC, and other sources used are very credible sources.

I think this reviewer has a personal bias against Patrick Bet-David.

Considering I have in the span of two days edited live wikipedia pages that have no sources at all. 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Remember to log in when posting. Claims of bias need hard evidence.

Google Books is not a source itself, you should be citing the book/publication directly. Interviews do not establish notability.

If you're aware of articles with no sources, you are free to point them out so action can be taken. That cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles, see WP:OSE. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That is just letting people know the book was published and has an isbn number. What you said is not even applicable to what is being discussed.

And how is Google Books not a reliable source? It is filled with books... All types of books

If that is the metrics. Wikipedia is not a reliable source

"A wiseman speaks because they have something to say. A fool speaks, because they want to say something."

~Plato 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't need mere documentation that a book exists. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We know this. 331dot (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I went to the reviewer's creation page. This reviewer literally has pages published with the same type of sources I used in my article. News Media and Newspapers. How are my sources not credible, when this reviewer uses the exact same type of sources to publish their articles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Bogensee

Look at the sources in his article. They are all media outlets and newspapers. Either this guy is biased or very unfamiliar with credible United States based media sources

By the metrics used by this reviewer, his own article should be rejected.

Make it make sense 136.55.28.55 (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, IP, "this guy" here.

"Same type of sources" means nothing. You can cite the most reliable source in the world, but it may not support what you say in your draft, and/or it may not contribute towards notability. And either way, citing that source may still leave a lot of the other content in your draft unsupported.

If you have a problem with the Villa Bogensee article, by all means start AfD or other deletion proceedings, that's your prerogative.

Oh, and BTW, please remember to log into your account whenever editing. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine, then. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature below as "critiques"):

• https://www.youtube.com/@VALUETAINMENT and anything on that channel is useless for notability (connexion to subject). We otherwise cannot use the rest of the YouTube videos (unknown provenance); we can only cite YouTube if the video was produced by an outlet we would consider reliable (such as The Wall Street Journal) and uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
• Your Google Books cites all need to be converted to offline cites using {{cite book}}, filling in the "first", "last", "title", "publisher", "year", "pages", and either the "isbn" or "oclc" parametres. Google Books itself cannot be used as a source (too sparse).
• https://www.patrickbetdavid.com/pay-forward-glendale-high-school/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• We can't use https://nationaltoday.com/birthday/patrick-bet-david/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of articles written under role/no byline because such bylines are frequently used to publish content that bypassed the editor's desk.)
• We can't use https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/patrick-bet-david-net-worth-043224317.html (no editorial oversight). Author is listed on the original piece as an "SEO Content Writer"^[sic]. Same applies to https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/patrick-bet-david-net-worth-2024-how-much-money-does-he-make/ar-AA1oqQTd as it's a mirror of the same source.
• We can't use https://phpagency.com/jennifer-bet-david-evp-of-agency-operations/ (too sparse and even if we could it's a non-sequitur.
• https://www.essentiallysports.com/boxing-news-grew-up-in-a-high-intense-war-and-bombings-patrick-bet-david-seeks-once-ignorant-mike-tysons-advice-on-how-to-control-his-aggression/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Most of the content about Bet-David is quotes attributed to him; barely any discussion of him.
• https://fadeawayworld.net/shaquille-oneal-blocked-patrick-bet-david-3-years-after-kobe-bryant-interview is useless for notability (routine coverage). This is celebrity-gossip levels of banality.
• https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/03/14/entrepreneur-patrick-bet-david-discusses-what-an-american-buyout-of-tiktok-could-look-like.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I've seen "<foo> Discusses TikTok Buyout" so much that it starts to act more like one's arsehole - you just don't go around showing your hot takes to everyone! Content using this source is subject to a contentious topic.
• https://www.outkick.com/culture/patrick-bet-david-predicts-star-studded-2028-election-field-mark-cuban-rock-potential-candidates is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is more about contemporary US politics than it is about Bet-David. Content using this source is subject to a contentious topic.
• https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/02/14/patrick_bet-david_we_missed_the_mark_to_be_united_during_covid_similar_to_911_because_we_chose_to_blame_trump.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject). This is a transcript of a discussion between Bet-David and Bill Maher. Content using this source is subject to multiple contentious topics (AP2, COVID).

None of your sources are any good. We do not go entirely by the outlet to determine how useful a source is; we have to read the source as well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

18:20, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Saksham Singh Yogi

• Saksham Singh Yogi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this article written on Swami Avimuktesdhwaranand Saraswati (The Current Shankaracharya of Jyotish Peeth) who is the topmost saint in Hindu religion and is the most famous and holds the supreme dignitory amongst saint of Sanatan dharma, Article is getting declined by Wikipedia team again and again kindly look into it and help me to make this article public in interest of hindus and indians Saksham Singh Yogi (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Saksham Singh Yogi: We have zero tolerance for proselytising and hagiographies. And that includes what you wrote in this section. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

21:47, 18 August 2024 review of submission by Injusticegod

• Injusticegod (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marko Meko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i want someone to help me create Marko Meko article please Injusticegod (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Injusticegod I do not believe he qualifies for an article. There are no sources that show any notability. It may be too soon in his career 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

well how can we make him notable?

i see there's also many people on wiki they are not notable! Injusticegod (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Injusticegod You cannot make him notable. If you cannot find references which prove him to be notable then it is time to give up. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Injusticegod, we cannot make anyone notable - the rest of the world does, and it takes time. Maybe Meko will produce a world-famous track, or will DJ some major events and become famous for that. What needs to happen is for independent people - people who write news articles, or books, or who make documentaries - to notice him and write about him. If enough people do that, he becomes notable by Wikipedia standards, and then you can write an article about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

got it, thank you it's time to give up Injusticegod (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

This isn't the place to ask for co-editors; please see the advice left by reviewers. Do you have more specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

August 19

03:20, 19 August 2024 review of submission by FROZENMAGIC

• FROZENMAGIC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nethaji Memorial Arts and Science College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to know why its rejecting and what should i do to avoid that? FROZENMAGIC (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)