Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
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

October 29

02:34, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Cclind

• Cclind (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Norman Krumholz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article keeps getting rejected because the subject is not "notable." I am not sure which articles to find that would warrant notability. So far, I have some from local newspapers, academic websites, and even a journal article. How do I prove that he was notable? Cclind (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Cclind! One thing that you'll want to fix before resubmitting is the citations. Have a look at referencing for beginners for a guide. You could also investigate WP:TWINKLE, which I believe adds some handy buttons for referencing (as well as tons of other things you might like if you want to stick around and keep editing!)

So now on to notability. First, you should have an idea in your mind of which criteria you're going to establish Krumholz is notable under. As he's a person, you have the choice of WP:NPERSON (notable person) or WP:GNG (general notability). There are sub-criteria for notable people as well, so you might want to look and see whether he meets the criteria for, say, academics. I have to admit that I don't immediately see which criteria he would count as notable under, but if you can point out the one you're relying on, I'd be happy to look through your sources and see how they stack up.

A last word - someone can be important, worthy, and respected in their field but still not be notable by Wikipedia's rules. Very, very few people ever warrant an article. Don't be discouraged if it turns out Krumholz isn't notable by Wikipedia standards - we'd love to have another editor around working on other articles. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

08:23, 29 October 2024 review of submission by 115.70.155.108

• 115.70.155.108 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daniel Upton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

What do I need to do to get it good enough for an article.

Blessings. 115.70.155.108 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

09:05, 29 October 2024 review of submission by SIEFIsmail

• SIEFIsmail (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brenda Abdelall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

now the page will not be published after my last edits ? SIEFIsmail (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have no independent reliable sources that show how she is a notable person. You essentially have just documented her work and activities, which does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@SIEFIsmail: how did you happen to find this draft, just out of curiosity? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd presume BrendaAbdelall (talk · contribs) told them, either before or after they got blocked. And given SIEFIsmail registered shortly after that block, this is me assuming good faith. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Although I did notice, only after I'd posed that question, that the block was only soft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

10:24, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

• Rosebabysu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dai Ying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you review my draft? Rosebabysu (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rosebabysu: you have submitted your draft for review, so it will be reviewed. It is impossible to say when the review will happen, since the reviewers are volunteers, and may evaluate drafts in any order. --bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rosebabysu: the draft has been submitted and will be reviewed when a reviewer happens to pick it up; please be patient.

That said, the information there is so sparse that it doesn't really amount to a viable article draft. If it were published like that, it would be liable for an immediate A7 speedy deletion as it does not make a credible claim of noteworthiness. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

11:20, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Steyncham

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

This article has been dedlined after I had already rewritten it to take into account comments from an editor. The reasons cited by the editor who rejected the submission appear quite un-specific, vague, to the point where I could think this editor is biased. This editor does not point which parts of the text correspond to the problems he mentions. I think the text is much more neutral and encyclopedic in both style and content than many wikipedia articles, and this rejection appears extremely unfair to me Steyncham (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steyncham: please do not make unfounded accusations of bias without providing solid evidence.

Also, this draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean the end of the road), merely declined (which means you're welcome to submit once you address the decline reasons).

The draft reads like an advocacy piece. We're looking for purely neutral, factual description, based on summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously said about this organisation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I got as far as looking at your first three sources - none of which even mentions "WePlanet".

A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, that is all. A citation which does not even mention the subject is usually a waste of everybody's time - writer's, reviewer's, and reader's.

I suspect that you wrote the draft BACKWARDS. ColinFine (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

12:00, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Fab Papa

• Fab Papa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John Shook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have taken the following page as a model for the creation of this page: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mike_Rother

Lean Thinking movement has worldwide historical significance and I find it interesting to document the key contributions that shaped it. John Shook and Mike Rother have both made key contributions, have a similar number of awards and have a similar number of publications.

So it's an interesting learning opportunity for me: what makes the https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Mike_Rother page ok but https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:John_Shook not ok?

Thanks for the feedback! Fab Papa (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fab Papa: unfortunately you've chosen a poorly-referenced, short stub, with questionable notability (and apparently written by the subject himself, to boot!) to model yours on. Which means you're at risk of replicating some of its problems.

If you're basing your claim of notability on impact and legacy, you need to support that with reliable and independent sources that clearly back that up.

The sources cited in this draft are primary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

I have discovered the concept of writing backwards, which I think explains some of my initial misconceptions. I will restart "forward" from the different awards received. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:John_Shook Fab Papa (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Fab Papa. I applaud you for working forwards. But it isn't the awards that you should work forward from: significant awards are indicators that a subject is probably notable (in Wikipedia's sense), but it is still the reliable independent sources that are required (see WP:42) and these are far and away the best place to start from. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

13:53, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Mdshinhasarder24

• Mdshinhasarder24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MD. Shinha Sarder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please add me details biography

in wikipedia  Mdshinhasarder24 (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mdshinhasarder24: nope, not going to happen. You were probably already told with your previous account, but if not, let me tell you now that we don't support autobiographies, especially where there isn't the slightest evidence that the subject is notable. You need to try somewhere like LinkedIn for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Mdshinhasarder24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MD. Shinha Sarder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biography for MD. Shinha Sarder Mdshinhasarder24 (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

This is block evasion. Draft is up for CSD G5 G11. SPI open. WP:ROTM self promoter. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

15:26, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja

• Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Underground Orange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I use Wikipedia all the time and have sent donations multiple times. I love what you all do and I'm trying to learn how to contribute to pages now as an editor. I am based in Argentina and made this page about a prominent film here, but it was declined. If you google the film there are tons of articles about it in English and Spanish but I don't know which ones to use as source references. Thank you! Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: you need to use sources that are reliable, first and foremost. Yours are all user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. That means they can't be used to verify the information, or to establish the subject's notability, both of which are core requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.

I think you also may have a conflict of interest regarding this subject. I've posted a message on your talk page about this; please read and respond to it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, will do thanks. There are tons of articles about the film in the biggest newspapers in Argentina, so maybe I should make the article in Spanish first? As you can see, these are the most reliable sources we have:

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/personajes/en-fotos-del-proyecto-que-reune-a-sofia-gala-vera-spinetta-y-kevin-johansen-a-la-salida-por-la-noche-nid23042024/

https://www.infobae.com/cultura/2024/10/10/teatro-comunitario-poliamor-y-plan-condor-todo-cabe-en-bajo-naranja/

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/espectaculos/personajes/sofia-gala-castiglione-por-que-descree-de-las-instituciones-la-promesa-de-moria-sobre-su-muerte-y-su-nid09102024/

https://elplanetaurbano.com/2024/05/vera-spinetta-existir-no-es-facil-no-me-resulta-tan-simple/ Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: you can use non-English sources here as well, there's no need to make a Spanish version of the article first, for that reason. (If you'd rather make a Spanish version, that's obviously your call.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oki Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I added the major source links to the article references. I'll need to know what you consider relevant in order to continue creating and editing wiki pages. Thanks Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: I cannot say succinctly and categorically what is "relevant", but what you're aiming for is to show that the film satisfies either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:NFILM notability guideline. The sources you need, are those which allow you to demonstrate notability via either route.

If you find that those sources don't sufficiently support the information in the draft, you will then need to supplement them with additional reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the tips. I resubmitted the entry after adding more key source references. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry should mention the film is called Bajo Naranja in Spanish Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

15:35, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Heck be gone

• Heck be gone (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • The Hillingdon Herald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I created the page but it was declined. May I please ask why so I can edit it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines? Thanks! Heck be gone (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Heck be gone. Your draft has three sources, but two of them are to the Hillingdon Herald's own website and the third is from Brunel Uni which hosts the paper. This means none of them are independent of the newspaper.

We usually look for at least three separately independent sources that discuss the topic. Qcne (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks so much for letting me know! :) Heck be gone (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

15:52, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Kat.synergy

• Kat.synergy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Palash Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I haven’t been able to find a specific website that states he has a degree, but I found a link related to the Husky Lunch Network on the UW alumni site. This network connects current UW students with alumni who can offer career advice, networking opportunities, and guidance. While it shows his association with UW, it doesn’t specifically verify his degree in business administration. Would this work as a citation to support his degree, or should I look for a more direct source? Kat.synergy (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kat.synergy: if the only reason you know that this person has a particular degree is that they told you, then you cannot use that; only information supported by reliable published sources can go into an article.

Without seeing the source you're suggesting to use, I can't say categorically whether it would be acceptable, but it sounds like probably wouldn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Understood—I’ll focus on finding a reliable, published source that specifically verifies the degree rather than relying on self-reported information. I’ll keep looking for something more suitable. Thank you! Kat.synergy (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I use LinkedIn to verify his degree? I’m also looking to find a suitable citation for his connection with Sportstalk.com, which is now part of ESPN Insider. What kind of citation would be appropriate for that? Thanks! Kat.synergy (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kat.synergy: no, you can't use LinkedIn, it's user-generated; people could (and do) write anything they want there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I've listed my college major as "alcohol" for like a decade now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Really? That's a good point! If I just remove the specific degree and say he graduated from UW, would the alumni site be a suitable citation for that? And for the connection with Sportstalk.com and ESPN Insider, what types of sources would you recommend using? Thanks! Kat.synergy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If I just remove the specific degree and say he graduated from UW, would the alumni site be a suitable citation for that? And for the connection with Sportstalk.com and ESPN Insider, what types of sources would you recommend using? Thanks! Kat.synergy (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

16:27, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Userfromtheusa5000

• Userfromtheusa5000 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Userfromtheusa5000/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to make this for my friend, please allow it I never have time to make a sufficient edit to it. Userfromtheusa5000 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Userfromtheusa5000: this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and will not be considered further. If you want to write about your friend and his chickens, you need to find an alternative platform for that; there are plenty to choose from, out there in them interwebs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

18:31, 29 October 2024 review of submission by MountainAccount

• MountainAccount (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:School of Continuing & Professional Studies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to make sure the page looks good before I resubmit in order for the page to be accepted and go live. MountainAccount (talk) 18:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@MountainAccount: this draft would not be accepted as it stands, given that it cites only close primary sources, which do not establish notability per WP:ORG.

Note that while universities by and large are notable, individual schools/faculties/departments etc. by and large aren't. In other words, merely existing isn't enough of a reason for this school to justify its own article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I added 2 secondary articles. Can you please review again and let me know of any other additional needs or if it would be accepted. Thank you. MountainAccount (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

18:43, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

• TJPR225 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:TJPR225/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello - I would like to get this author's page up on Wikipedia. Can you help me? TJPR225 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in your draft to suggest that Faust Ruggiero is notable in Wikipedia terms and it is entirely unreferenced so has zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I added two sources now. TJPR225 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@TJPR225: We can't cite Medium (no editorial oversight) and we can't cite Google Books (no editorial oversight). A quick search shows absolutely no sources we can use (string: "faust ruggiero"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

18:53, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

• TJPR225 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:TJPR225/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone please help me get an author's page up? TJPR225 (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Answered above. Theroadislong (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

18:55, 29 October 2024 review of submission by TJPR225

• TJPR225 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:TJPR225/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added two sources now.... TJPR225 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@TJPR225: please don't spam the help desk, and don't start a new thread with each comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

20:16, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Finlay73

• Finlay73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Masutaro Otani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created the page 'Masutaro Otani' in Japanese but actually noticed I used incorrect kanji for the actual translated name but can't seem to be able to change it myself. Hiss actual name as shown on his grave says the following: 増太郎

I hope somebody is able to help me make this change. Finlay73 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Finlay73: This page is for assistance with draft articles on the English-language Wikipedia. To be frank, editors here are vanishingly likely to be able to help with matters on the Japanese-language Wikipedia due to being illiterate in that language. You need to be asking for assistance at ja.wp, not here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

23:43, 29 October 2024 review of submission by Nangthang

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

I coundn't find any articles/publie to use sources other than ZYA Homepage website and their Facebook page. They mainly use Facebook to give updates and other stuff to the community. Nangthang (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nangthang: Then we can't have an article for want of third-party sources that can show the subject is notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

October 30

00:09, 30 October 2024 review of submission by FranceRivet

• FranceRivet (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Samuel Metcalfe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

On August 1st, SafariScribe declined the article proposed for Draft:Samuel Metcalfe, an Inuk from Nunatsiavut, Canada, on the basis that he considered the sources to be unreliable. I have written to him to get clarifications, but the reply I received was that he would not share his analysis with me. I am hoping that someone at your help desk can help me understand which references are deemed unreliable.

Of the 34 sources listed in the article,

• 13 are articles published in respected magazines such as Inuktitut Magazine (the official publication of Canada’s National Inuit organization which has been published for over 60 years), Etudes/Inuit/Studies (one of the most important scholar publications on everything Inuit published by Université Laval in Québec City), Atuaqnik (a newspaper published by the Inuit community of Northern Quebec, now called Nunavik), Circuit (the magazine published by the Order of translators, terminologists and interpreters of the province of Quebec), Kinatuinamut Ilingajuk (a Labrador periodical published in Nain by the Labrador Inuit Association), and Polar Record (A Journal of Arctic and Antarctic Research published in Copenhagen).

• 6 are articles published in newspapers such as The Ottawa Citizen (Canada’s Capital daily newspaper) and The Telegram (the daily newspaper of the city of St. John’s, the capital of the province of Newfoundland-and-Labrador).

• 1 is from a book published by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

• 1 is from a thesis from Memorial University in St. John’s, Newfoundland-and-Labrador.

• 1 is from a publication by the Nunatsiavut Government.

• 1 is from a census record

• 5 are from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid.

• 6 are from letters, certificates and id cards issued by third parties and are held in Sam’s personal archives.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t understand how the sources referencing magazines, newspapers, books, theses, census records or governmental publications can be seen as unreliable.

Am I right that the issue is with the materials we have included that come from Sam’s personal archives? These letters, certificates and id cards were issued by external/independent organizations, but if I understand correctly, the fact that they do not correspond to material published in a publicly available source makes them unsuitable for Wikipedia. By any chance, if we were to upload photos of some of these certificates/id cards would the references now be accepted since the visual proof is provided?

For the references from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid, 4 of the 5 references refer to TV or radio programs produced by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Canada’s national radio and TV broadcaster) or the OkalaKatiget Society (a Nunatsiavut non-profit society dedicated to preserving and promoting the language and culture of the Inuit within Nunatsiavut through radio and television programming). These are therefore productions that were once publicly broadcast and copies of the programs are now held at the archives. Why wouldn’t they be suitable? Is it because we simply refer to them? Is it mandatory that I view and listen to the programs to report what Sam actually said?

The remaining reference taken from the Labrador Institute Archive Finding Aid is a statement that Sam translated a book from Inuttitut to English. The reference is not a published document, but the book that Sam translated is. If this reference is not suitable, I presume that we have to get a copy of the published book and see if Sam’s name is mentioned as being the translator. That would become the new reference. Is this correct?

SafariScribe also had an issue with the “notability” of Samuel Metcalfe. We can deal with this issue in a separate discussion, once we clarify the references.

Thank you in advance for your time and help.

FranceRivet (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FranceRivet! The two issues are in fact the same, from Wikipedia's point of view - you are trying to use sources (which must be reliable, etc) in order to establish notability. Let's see if we can sort this out by breaking it down a bit.

Firstly, you have to decide the grounds that you are arguing he is notable under. Since he's a person, you have the choice of WP:NPERSON (notable person) or WP:GNG (general notability). NPERSON has subcriteria, so it may be that you are saying he's notable via one of those. Those pages will also tell you what you need to provide in order to establish notability - for example, if you were saying he's a notable creative professional, you would be looking for evidence that he'd had a big exhibition, or started a new kind of art, or so on.

Once you've decided which that is - and please do mention it here, it'll help! - then you look at your sources to see if you have suitable sources. The thing that often trips people up is that any source you are using to establish notability must meet the triple criteria of WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for 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).

I'm not going to go through all your sources, but I would be happy to look at five or so of them if you want to point to some in particular that you think would count. I can already tell you that letters, ID cards, and government records in general won't establish notability. If some of the sources include for example newspaper articles about Metcalfe, or a chapter in a book about him, that sort of thing is likely to establish notability. Ideally you won't be using the letters etc at all, but you can use sources that don't meet the triple criteria for uncontroversial information (things like when and where he was born, family names, and so on). Remember though that your first goal is notability, so you should focus on sources that do meet WP:42 first and foremost.

I hope that helps, and please feel free to comment back with more questions and/or with sources you'd like me to look at. Happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much @StartGrammarTime! Your answer does help. I'll remove all the letters, ID cards, etc. I guess I was trying to include too much. I'll go over the links you provided. I'll get back to you when a new and improved (hopefully ;-)) version is available. Thanks again! FranceRivet (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

02:12, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Dturell

• Dturell (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:William E. Bradshaw and Christina M. Holzapfel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I was wondering if I can get further feedback and assistance on how the sources in this article can be improved. I have read through this resource: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability and am unsure. Thank you! Dturell (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Many claims in this draft is completely unsourced, which goes against a very important policy. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

02:59, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

• Rosebabysu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dai Ying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, the content I submitted has been waiting for review for several weeks. Could you please expedite the review process? Rosebabysu (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We're actually already kind of getting far with reviewing as much as possible. Last month people were forced to wait for 3 months! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rosebabysu: you just asked this yesterday. I've now reviewed your draft, and declined it. (This should not be interpreted as meaning that requests to expedite will result in immediate reviews. Consider this a one-off.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

03:03, 30 October 2024 review of submission by 12.117.180.190

• 12.117.180.190 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Santa Rosa County Courthouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Build 12.117.180.190 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Please specify your question. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Man Mandir Palace

Hi, I created a page but it got declined. I wanted to know the reasons so that I can know what else was required. Donchocolate (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Donchocolate, the only drafts of yours I can see are about train lines and a blank sandbox. The blank sandbox page has been declined for being, well, a blank page. If you're asking about another draft, could you link it so we can see? StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

06:14, 30 October 2024 review of submission by RMPMLK

• RMPMLK (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pasindu Matheesha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can Submit my article RMPMLK (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@RMPMLK: you can not submit this draft anymore, since it has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@RMPMLK: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We don't accept resumes or curricula vitae, and we don't cite LinkedIn (connexion to subject/no editorial oversight). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

07:42, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega

• Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2029 in public domain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please help me! Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega: can you be a bit more specific, please?

Your draft is completely unreferenced. You need to tell us where this information is coming from.

Also, see original research.

Finally, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

09:29, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Soenkesiebrands

• Soenkesiebrands (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sina-drums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Question to the review of an Articles for creation: Sina-drums (October 30) Hello. My draft at https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Draft:Sina-drums has been declined with the following problem: "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Unfortunately I don't understand the reasoning because I have given over 30 sources that should be reliable. However, I have to say that this is my first page on English-language Wikipedia. I usually work on German sites. Since the German artist in this article has moved to London this year, I wanted to take a look at her English language entry after working on the German Wikipedia entry. But I couldn't find it, so I decided to write it myself. All external sources provided are the same as those rated as reliable by the German Wikipedia admin. The German article has been checked and approved by a German Wikipedia admin. Therefore, I am asking for help at this point so that someone can tell me which of the sources given are considered unreliable and, above all, why. I thank you in advance. Soenkesiebrands (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Soenkesiebrands I fixed your post to properly link to your draft. Be aware that the German Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here; it is up to those translating an article to ensure that the topic meets the notability requirements and other policies of the Wikipedia for which they are translating.

Do admins on the German Wikipedia routinely approve content? Any editor may do so here, not just admins.

I would suggest that you ask the reviewer directly on their user talk page what the specific concerns are(they may also see your post here). 331dot (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Soenkesiebrands: user-generated sources (YouTube, Discogs, Facebook, etc.) are not considered reliable for most purposes. Your draft cites such sources 24 times by my count. Also, there is some unreferenced personal information, eg. which source gives this person's DOB? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to thank you for the constructive comments. I understand the meaning behind these requirements. But there should be a huge difference between a nobody like me posting on YouTube or Facebook and a star like Ian Paice or Joe Lynn Turner doing the same? In the music business, a lot is presented exclusively through such channels. And if I want to prove that a YouTube star has over 1.6 million subscribers like in this case, then I can only do that with a link to the relevant channel, because that's the only place it says it.

I have a question about personal data. In German Wikipedia it is not desirable to use the website of the person described as a reference, otherwise people could simply create their own website and build corresponding documents there for themselves. How is this handled in the English Wikipedia version, for example as evidence of birthday or place of birth? Soenkesiebrands (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I didn't actually look at any of the YouTube links cited, so wasn't commenting on whether they specifically were any good or not; it was just a general comment about many of your citations being to user-generated sources. Our stance on YouTube is that if a media outlet which is usually regarded as reliable (say, DW or BBC) makes available their own content on their own official channel, this can be considered reliable even if it's on YouTube, but that's pretty much where it ends. Even if a famous 'star' posts content on their channel, this is still user-generated, and probably isn't subject to much fact-checking, editorial oversight, etc. which is what is needed for a media outlet to be considered reliable.

As for using close primary sources, these can be used to verify purely factual, non-contentious information, but they do not contribute anything toward notability. The issue with DOB is that many people (sensibly, IMO) are cautious about releasing such potentially sensitive information into the public domain, which is why we will only accept it if it can be shown that this information already is freely available. If someone posts their DOB on their website, we can probably assume that a) it is correct, and b) they won't object to us pointing to it. (Okay, I guess one could come up with all sorts of hypothetical scenarios whereby someone wants to fake their DOB for some reason, and does that by posting the fake date on their website, and then uses Wikipedia to amplify that lie... but this is rather fanciful, IMO.)

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can think of a few that aren't quite in the fanciful category. For one, actors have tried to "un-age" themselves in IMDB, so the motivation would be the same here, I imagine. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

11:25, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Rgmkenna

• Rgmkenna (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Edward S. Hynes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft was criticised as looking like an advertisement. I have taken out what I think was the offending element. Will the draft be reviewed again? Rgmkenna (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rgmkenna: it will be reviewed again (in due course) if you resubmit it; click that blue 'resubmit' button whenever you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

12:16, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Gascogne2127

• Gascogne2127 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Josef Pögl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to create this new article about the Austrian Painter, Josef Pögl who was in his day, national arts prize winner and is included in major collections in Austria with specific relevance to documenting Imperial Palace interiors and scenes from the defunct Habsurg Empire. I have assembled references from independent sources and note the article as been twice rejected. What can I do concretely to improve this article and get it into the article space? Gascogne2127 (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gascogne2127: it's a bit difficult, especially for non-German-speakers, to decipher some of the sources, even just to understand what they actually are. This isn't helped by the fact that many of them are offline, which is perfectly acceptable, I'm not arguing that, just saying that establishing notability is a bit of a detective job with this one. (Speaking of offline, please make sure to include sufficient bibliographical detail, to enable the sources to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.)

If it turns out that notability cannot be established via the usual WP:GNG guideline, you may consider whether this person is notable per any of the four criteria in WP:ARTIST.

Anyway, you have now resubmitted the draft, so you'll find out soon enough whether it has been accepted, and if not, why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, the following criteria is met: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Not only has this artist been awarded a national prize in his lifetime, but was also during and after his lifetime included in one of the most important collections of Austrian art "the Austrian Gallery, Belvedere" which includes important works by more famous contemporaries such as Klimt, Schiele, Kokoschka etc AND main art museum collection in Innsbruck "the Tyrolean State Museum or Ferdinandium." The painter is also known for his portrayal of interiors of Imperial Palaces in Austria after the Fall of the Habsburg Empire and despite that some of those interiors were either damaged or completely destroyed during WWII and afterwards. I was able to find allusion to the references even if they are in German on English translated websites that cite them as well as reading the original sources. I have found now 10 pertinent references. I have also written to a curator who is an expert on the period at the Dorotheum to see if she can identify further references but have not heard back yet. Thanks again for your help. Gascogne2127 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

13:56, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Combat marto

• Combat marto (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KELSTEPPAH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to publish pages for unnotable/upcoming artist Combat marto (talk) 13:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is that you can't, people have to actually be notable before warranting an article and gaining "popularity on social media platforms" is NOT a relevant part of the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the wrong place to write about unnotable and upcoming people. 331dot (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

14:28, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Evaaaaaleung

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

Hi, I am wondering why the article was declined and which bit of the reference was not qualified? Thank! Evaaaaaleung (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Evaaaaaleung I fixed your link for proper display(you need the "Draft:" portion). He does not seem to meet the definition of a notable musician. YouTube is not an acceptable source unless it is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

14:38, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja

• Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Underground Orange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there. I live in Argentina and last night on Libera I received the help from a bunch of folks as we tried to determine what are reliable sources for this article on the movie Underground Orange. jmcgnh thought that reviews would help to determine its reliability. Here in Argentina La Nacion and InfoBae are the biggest most mainstream newspapers and Indie Hoy is the most reliable source of reviews. Underground Orange has three Argentine stars in it and is currently in theaters nationwide so it's a notable project to us. I'm trying to determine if I should continue working on this article or throw it away since SafariScribe has rejected it. Thanks for your assistance. Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mitaja Mitaja Mitaja: could you please respond to the conflict-of-interest query I posted on your talk page yesterday. If this is your film you're writing about, you need to disclose your COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

14:51, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Pedian4169

• Pedian4169 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Afyonkarahisar Health Sciences University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I dont understand what is wrong with the article i need some assistance here. The University is new so there isnt much to add. Thats why i created this as a stub article Pedian4169 (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pedian4169: stubs have to demonstrate notability just like any other article. Per WP:ORG, you need to cite multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject, and which have provided significant coverage of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I put secondary sources and submitted it and it was declined. I thought all state universities are notable (it is like that in Turkish Wikipedia) Pedian4169 (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pedian4169: the first two citations are to the university's own website. The other two sources, BenimHedefim.com and Hangi Üniversite are not secondary sources, they're just directory listings or info capsules.

And as it says in WP:ORG, no organisation is automatically notable, they all have to demonstrate notability by satisfying that guideline. It's true that many universities do manage to do that, but that just means they have met the guideline, not that they were exempt from it simply for being universities. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

No organization is inherently notable on this Wikipedia. At one point educational institutions were, but they are no longer. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for correcting. There are indeed 'legacy' articles on universities, which were given automatic free pass; not all satisfied ORG, as I was incorrectly suggesting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If it is a new university, it is doubtful that it has drawn the coverage in independent reliable sources needed to merit a Wikipedia article. You need to show that it meets the definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

15:27, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

• Rosebabysu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dai Ying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have added the authoritative source again and requested review, thank you Rosebabysu (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rosebabysu: you have added two interviews, which do not contribute towards notability, and one deprecated source (Globaltimes.cn) which must not be cited at all. I'm afraid this draft will still be declined.

BTW, the paid-editing disclosure on your user page gives no details of who your client is or what subjects your paid-editing COI relates to (I'm guessing Dai Ying, but I shouldn't really need go guess). Could you please correct the template. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

15:46, 30 October 2024 review of submission by GoneDutch

• GoneDutch (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Foundation for Research on Information Technologies in Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The last time the draft was rejected, there was a comment about there being one external reference in the text. I edited the recently restored draft today, checking all of the references, and could not find any external ones. Am I missing something? GoneDutch (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@GoneDutch, found it! Search for "whereby the author"; author is an external link. StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! I was going nuts! The link has now been converted to a webpage citation... GoneDutch (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It took me ages too, I ended up looking through all the code for an http without a chunk of text in front (because references will have all the info about author and so on before a link, but external links won't). Happy I could help, and good luck with your draft! StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

16:57, 30 October 2024 review of submission by Ibrahimmusa4

• Ibrahimmusa4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ibrahimmusa4/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created my first article but rejected. The purpose of my article is to clear a confusion and controversy in "a Mishawi and Kamil image". Many Quran Apps of Minshawi could be seen bearing an image of Shaykh Kamil AlBahtimi Ibrahimmusa4 (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ibrahimmusa4: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We are an encyclopaedia project, not a bulletin board for public-service announcements. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

17:30, 30 October 2024 review of submission by AngieTheMicro

• AngieTheMicro (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Azure Hermes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was rejected on the basis that its references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". However, I think some references may have been overlooked.

• The reference https://citynews.com.au/2021/azure-returns-indigenous-blood-samples-home/ includes significant coverage (Azure Hermes' work is the subject of the article) from a published, reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject (Canberra City News).

• The reference https://scccp.net/2022/12/02/transcript-community-engagement-consent-a-conversation-with-azure-hermes/ is an independently produced podcast episode focusing on Azure Hermes' unique and important work.

• The reference https://www.unsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/unsw-adobe-websites/science/faculty/2021-10-Science-First-Nations-Genomics-Transcript.pdf is a transcript of a public panel discussion in which Azure Hermes was one of three participants discussing the intricacies of First Nations Genomics work.

Exactly how many more references are needed, from what list of acceptable "published, reliable, secondary sources", in order for Azure Hermes' unique contributions to engaging indigenous communities in the study of their genomes to be considered Wikipedia-worthy? AngieTheMicro (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @AngieTheMicro. The first source above is mostly based on an interview, and so is not independent. (I haven't looked at the others).

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) 19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @AngieTheMicro! Following up on what ColinFine's mentioned, the second reference (podcast) is an interview with Hermes, and the third is (as you say) a panel discussion involving Hermes. While these sources might be useful for information about Hermes' work, they cannot contribute to establishing notability because they are not independent of Hermes.

In order to demonstrate that someone is notable, you need sources that meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for 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). There is no list of acceptable sources, because we could never manage to encompass the huge variety of sources around the world, but you can try checking WP:RSPSS if you're unsure about whether a source is reliable. Keep in mind that even if they are reliable, they must meet all three criteria to count for notability - for example the City News source may be reliable, but it is not independent, and so it fails the test. I hope that's helped you, and wish you happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with the independence of the City News source? I can't find a good reason in WP:IS to call it non-independent. The person the article is about works in Canberra, and the facet of the news outlet publishing the source is focused on Canberra, but I don't see any evidence that this outlet is an "indiscriminate source" as described in WP:IS, and I can't figure out what else you're seeing about it that would disqualify it. GenomeFan92 (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's (mostly) not independent because it's (mostly) quoting Hermes. 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) 17:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of how to deal with articles and quotations was that quotes or assertions that so-and-so said such-and-such aren't fact-checked on the content of what was said. So if you have a New York Times article that says "Jimatha Thomas, CEO of BigCorp, says that their new WhizBang 5000 can style your hair automatically.", then that article is a reliable independent source for establishing that Jimantha Thomas is indeed CEO of BigCorp, and that they indeed have made this claim, but not usable as a citation for the actual capabilities of the WhizBang 5000.

The contents of the person's statements are not independent from the person themselves, but the editorial decision to write an article about this person and to report that they said particular things is an independent editorial decision, right? GenomeFan92 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine and StartGrammarTime for the explanations. It's a really high bar to meet if an article about a living person cannot include an interview with that person -- isn't it the norm to interview a living person for an article about their work? And thank you GenomeFan92 for finding the two additional references (currently references 4 and 5). I hope the improved article will be accepted. 2601:204:F100:AAB0:E195:19E0:A07E:2EAC (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not forbidden to cite an interview; but the purpose of a citation is to verify something in the article, nothing else; and the range of things which may be verified by a non-indpendent source is quite limited (see WP:PRIMARY).

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) 17:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course interviews with a living person are very normal, and indeed we even prefer them for some things - for example, if a person were to come out as trans, we would want that to be stated by them rather than any other source! But for anything that could be disputed, like whether they're an expert in their field, we need other people to agree with that statement. The Wikipedia notability system can be unintuitive when you're just starting out, but it's what has been agreed on over years of discussion and it works pretty well overall. It can be frustrating when the person you want to write about hasn't yet received much attention, but you can always wait and keep honing your draft until they start to be noticed - and thus, for Wikipedia, notable. StartGrammarTime (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

October 31

07:16, 31 October 2024 review of submission by LukasThomas57

• LukasThomas57 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:L1am/LiamWRLD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I wanted to make an article about the singer LiamWRLD/L1am but it got rejected and I wanted to know why that is 🫤 LukasThomas57 (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@LukasThomas57: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

08:08, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Fayomi Favour

• Fayomi Favour (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fawaz Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I created an article on the biography of Fawaz Muhammad on August but was declined on August 20th due to over citation to unworthy sites. Few days after that I edited it and removed some citations, (some of which were considered unworthy) , leaving only credible sites, but still it didn't make it. What should I do? Fayomi Favour (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fayomi Favour: The draft is not waiting for review at the moment. When you think it is ready to be reviewed again, click the blue "Resubmit" button in the decline notice. --bonadea contributions talk 08:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. You are greatly appreciated Fayomi Favour (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

08:34, 31 October 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:279F:726C:ED86:ED81:1E4:A58B

• 2402:8100:279F:726C:ED86:ED81:1E4:A58B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Manoj Maansingh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Music artist 2402:8100:279F:726C:ED86:ED81:1E4:A58B (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You have not provided any sources to show that this musician meets the definition of a notable musician. That's why the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. You should have sources in hand before attempting to write an article, please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

12:16, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Heather Clarke

• Heather Clarke (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:AloSIM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My first draft referenced a series of articles about our company, but some of those articles were written by affiliates. So I redid the draft to include ONLY articles written by unbiased reporters. Is the problem still my sources? Or is it that I work for the company/app that I am writing about? I did the disclosures it required, but I'm unsure why it keeps getting declined and listing multiple possible reasons. Thanks! Heather Clarke (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Heather Clarke First, I see you have declared a WP:COI on your user page. This is insufficient. I have placed a formal question abut paid editing on your user talk page.

Second, why do you feel this company deserves an article? What is notable about it?

Third, the decline rationales ought to be easy to understand. If they are not then we need to clarify them. With precision, what do you not understand, please?

Before answering any questions make the paid editing declaration on your user page. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

12:23, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Job Kiprop Kwonyike

• Job Kiprop Kwonyike (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KKCO East Africa LLP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am an employee and I believe I have disclosed in my user page. Can I write the content or must I seek a thid party to do the same. Job Kiprop Kwonyike (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Job Kiprop Kwonyike Anyone seeking payment for writing articles may be part of a SCAM. Please be extremely careful.

You may write an article where you are a paid editor. However, it must meet our standards. You may not advertise you business. Please read HELP:YFA. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Job Kiprop Kwonyike I see that your draft has been deleted twice as an advert. Please learn from this. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have learn. I respect your team a lot, that is why I am seeking guidance on simply how to have a company page approved. 41.90.118.145 (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't have "company pages" here. We have articles about certain companies that meet our criteria. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 31 October 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) 18:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

13:15, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Druvx13

• Druvx13 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zand Hanuman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance to better understand how to improve the sourcing and citation requirements for my draft article, "Zand Hanuman." I have added multiple references, including citations from the Gujarati Wikipedia and a local historical website, History of Vadodara. However, the draft was declined for being "improperly sourced."

I would appreciate guidance on:

1. The type of additional sources that would meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability and reliability for historic/religious sites like this one.

2. How to improve my existing citations or reference formatting.

3. Any additional steps I should take to provide verifiable information for this article.

Thank you for your assistance! Druvx13 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Druvx13: you need to tell us where this information came from; those are the sources that you should add.

You're not currently citing anything, you've merely listed two sources (one of which being Wikipedia, which is not a valid source). This makes it very difficult for the reviewer to see where the information comes from, and how much of it does not come from a reliable source. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

13:20, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Artistguides

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

My draft for Wiki has been rejected three times, without further instruction or feedback of how I can improve my article. I was wondering if there was some insight I could gain by someone to let me know why my article is being rejected. I have previously edited the article to ensure there are no bare URLs as per one of the feedback suggestions, so I am unsure why this is still being rejected, some feedback just reads as ' a non notable' article, however there are many news articles published about Hendog for his work in Street Art so I am unsure why this would be a non notable article for Wikipedia. Artistguides (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It was declined twice and rejected the last time because the reviewer felt "this submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". It seems to just serve to document his work, none of which is itself notable. That would mean this street artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

13:35, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

• Rosebabysu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dai Ying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have readjusted the content and added new source information. Please review and guide me. Thank you. Rosebabysu (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

You have submitted it for review and it is pending. It will be reviewed in due course, and the reviewer will leave you feedback if not accepted. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Rosebabysu, please stop making new sections here. Telling us you have updated the draft is not going to get it reviewed faster. This board is here for people to ask questions about the process. You have made four sections in three days, none of which involved asking a question. Please be patient and only come here if you have a question, so that volunteers' time is not wasted. StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

14:22, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Mel tilly

• Mel tilly (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nancy Lyons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand why this was rejected. Nancy is a notable person with references that are credible and reputable. I just edited the draft and added two awards. Nancy's co-founder has a wikipedia page that is published (Michael Koppelman) and I would like to get her page published as well. Thank you. Melanie Shirley (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Mel tilly It was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. The whole url is not necessary when linking to another Wikipedia article or page, I fixed this for you.

Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits, not based on the presence of other articles that themselves may not be appropriate(I haven't examined it yet).

Most of the awards you list do not contribute to notability, as the awards themselves do not have articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The draft just documents her activities, it does not summarize what independent reliable sources say is notable about her. 331dot (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Koppelman article, it is very poorly sourced(note that is is marked with a maintenance tag as problematic) and a poor model to use. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have sent Michael Koppelman to WP:AFD, thank you for bringing it to our attention. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The article on Koppelman predates the drafting process entirely (first edit 2004 Dec 01) and was thus never formally drafted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

16:23, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Misa-Mii

• Misa-Mii (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:NalaPaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

publishing an article about a content creator and their biography Misa-Mii (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

That is NOT a potential article it is blatant, unsourced, totally inappropriate promotion and correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

16:53, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Richard Michael Allen Richmond 51

• Richard Michael Allen Richmond 51 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Richard Michael Allen Richmond 51/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just want to ensure that my submission was permanently deleted. If not, please let me know what I need to do to delete the submission. Thanks Richard Michael Allen Richmond 51 (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It's now deleted. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Be advised that "deleted" means it is no longer visible to the public, but it is not vaporized, it can be seen by admins and recovered if requested. 331dot (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

22:37, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Ingenierofilantropo

• Ingenierofilantropo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Matthew Duran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello.

This is not promotional, and is 100% factual. Do you have any other means by which this page could move forward, or edits that can be made? Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenierofilantropo Rammed full of copyright violating pictures. No. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I own all of these files. Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ingenierofilantropo Then prove that you have the right to upload them by following the process at c:COM:VRT. They are being handled at Wikimedia Commons currently. Ownership of a photograph does not mean you own the copyright, nor that you have the right to upload it. Copyright is more complex than many people realise.

The draft has been deleted. If you disagree with the deleting administrator please approach them in the first instance. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will review the c:COM:VRT protocol. Ingenierofilantropo (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

22:56, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Bkiller127

• Bkiller127 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Counter Investigation Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have not found “Proof” of your statement. Bkiller127 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be G11'ed instead of being G1'ed? I don't see how this one is gibberish, and my best bet is that this draft be speeded under other criteria's like G11... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is G11, now. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

23:07, 31 October 2024 review of submission by Alex.Dybala

• Alex.Dybala (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Simone Scaglia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I made an artice and it got approved but they took it down and made it a draft again. Was the reason for not enough secondary or tertiary sources?

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Alex.Dybala#c-SafariScribe-20241031041100-Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Simone_Scaglia_has_been_accepted

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Simone_Scaglia

Alex.Dybala (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to know why my draft wasn't approved

draft:loves farm Size5football (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No independent sources? Theroadislong (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

November 1

00:00, 1 November 2024 review of submission by A.almana

• A.almana (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdulrahman Al-Mana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi which source is not reliable ? A.almana (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@A.almana Please read WP:REFB and sort your referencing out. They are unreadable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

03:36, 1 November 2024 review of submission by 2402:8100:279E:7E4D:333A:6D03:2180:2958

• 2402:8100:279E:7E4D:333A:6D03:2180:2958 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Manoj Maansingh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because he is a singer available all platform songs 2402:8100:279E:7E4D:333A:6D03:2180:2958 (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Just having songs available on music platforms is not sufficient to establish notability. Articles are based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No such sources are provided and, in fact, there's barely any content on the article itself. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be reconsidered at this time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

06:11:26, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Immaculate Namanda

• Immaculate Namanda (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Collapse
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Pebuu Africa Pebuu Africa is a data-driven field management technology solutions firm headquartered in Uganda. The company is focused on driving digital transformation across Africa by offering solutions in agent and merchant management, as well as last-mile distribution. Pebuu is involved in modernizing value chains across the continent, with a particular emphasis on distribution, agent banking, and merchant management. Pebuu operates across several key African markets, including South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The company's services enable financial institutions and retail companies to deliver seamless, innovative, and inclusive financial solutions to underserved communities, helping bridge the gap between traditional and digital economies. Operations in Uganda In Uganda, Pebuu has expanded its service network to over 320 locations, managing a network of more than 20,000 agents. The company uses technology platforms that provide real-time tracking and geo-mapping solutions, improving operational oversight and the management of agents and merchant service points. These technologies have contributed to the recruitment, monitoring, and supervision of bank agents, playing a critical role in maintaining a well-regulated financial services ecosystem. Global Expansion As part of its global growth strategy, Pebuu has established an office in the United States of America. This international expansion aims to strengthen the company's presence in high-growth markets and further its mission of contributing to financial inclusion and sustainable growth across Africa. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Immaculate Namanda: you don't ask a question, but Draft:Pebuu has been deleted as promotional. Please don't post the same sort of promo blurb here, this help desk is only for seeking assistance with drafts undergoing the AfC review process and matters related to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, apologies. Immaculate Namanda (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I left them my incredibly helpful and informative deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: It really is helpful and informative – I have thought that before, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 08:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

09:29, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Elinhprotianthrwpi

• Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Penelope Penny Koutourinis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello wikipedia gurus, I don't know what I am doing wrong. I wish I understood, but you all know about wikipedia use much better than me. Can someone please finally help me create this page for author Penelope Penny Koutourinis? Can someone please fix it for me so it fits the correct wikipedia guidelines as you are the experts at wikipedia and not me. Your help is mostly appreaciated. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elinhprotianthrwpi: while waiting for a guru to come along, I'll take a swing at this.

You need to support the draft with reliable sources, which must be cited 'inline' ie. in the draft text next to the information they support.

You also need to show evidence that this person is notable enough to be included in the encyclopaedia. You have two options: either via the general WP:GNG notability route, which requires significant coverage of her in multiple secondary sources, or the WP:AUTHOR route which needs evidence of a reasonably significant writing career.

And no, we don't get involved in co-editing here at the help desk, I'm afraid. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

ok DoubleGrzing thanks for your help I'll give it another try Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, doubleGrazing I went to the WP:GNG page and from my understanding I need sources for Penelope, but I added the sources and notable links to her books, I used google books as a source, maybe I didn't do it right

so, in my editing page, where I created the article, what do I need to write or add to make it acceptable? please help me via steps if you can because you are the guru on wikepedia and I am an absolute beginner!!! Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

hello, I can't seem to add the cited 'inline' I don't know where to write it and what I have to write , so sorry, I am a beginner, please help with steps, thank you Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You need to show how they pass the criteria at WP:NWRITER first. Theroadislong (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Theroadislong, how do I get the article to pass the criteria, I read it all, the article on Penelope Penny Koutourinis is notable as she is a writer and author, and what do I do next? please helps with steps of what I have to do to get her article on wiki as it is ligit, she is an author Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Merely being an author isn't enough to merit an article, with the internet and self publishing almost anyone can "be an author". You need to show that she passes at least one of the criteria written at WP:NWRITER. Which of those criteria do you feel she passes? 331dot (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

what if the articles are in another language? and as far as I know she has recognition. but you are the gurus, if you say she can't be on wikipedia then I have to respect that. have a good day, thanks for your assistance. Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elinhprotianthrwpi: she is not notable just because you say so, she is (?) notable when you produce evidence of that. Being a writer is not enough; she must be a writer who has received significant attention for her writing, and for that we need to see reliable and independent sources proving it. Your draft lists (without citing) two issues of one publication, which doesn't seem to be available to view, and one user-generated source which may or may not be reliable.

You can find pretty much everything you need for article creation at WP:YFA, and WP:REFB tells you how to correctly cite your sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

hi, most articles of her are in another language, not English, that's why I didn't add the citings. Some articles about her come from an Australian magazine a few years ago, to which I provided the links. Also, my dear, it's not just me who says she is recognized, and I can understand that wiki has certain guidelines, but I was trying to create an article about a person who is genuinely an author and not someone random who acts as one. In any case, I respect wiki's rules and if ever she gains worldwide media attention, then I'll come back then and write the citings, ref, sources ect. have a great day. thank you! Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elinhprotianthrwpi No amount of discussion can make her notable. Please research referencing, and deploy those references wisely. Non English references are fine.

You have all the tools at your disposal, so please use them. Either she is notable in a Wikipedia sense, or she is not.

When you have done the work, please resubmit for review.

Please do not patronise other editors, 'Also, my dear, it's not just m..." is not a welcome turn of phrase. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, patronizing? I believe there's a misunderstanding, I have been nothing but polite to everyone who has tried to help me. So, if you feel offended by writing, my dear, which wasn't to you, then i apologize, but my intentions have and will be polite to all editors. I am offended that you got involved in a discussion between me and DoubleGrazing, I don't think he or she was offended, I believe they understood my sincerity to the matter. When someone signs off the message with, have a great day, be well, is that patronizing? No. Therefore, I kindly request, that you do not accuse without a solid fact that I was patronizing. In any case, I was merely trying to write an article about her because I had read three of her books and then searched that she has references in Greek newspapers and magazines. Asking for help isn't a bad thing. I have taken another editor's suggestion, therefore please do not reply to me again, and I'm saying that in the nicest coolest way. Have a great day. Be well. Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 08:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want to limit a discussion to yourself and someone else, that is best done on their user talk page. Discussions in open forums like this may be commented on by anyone.

I understand that in some cultures, addressing others as "dear" is acceptable, but in others it's considered demeaning. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Elinhprotianthrwpi An interesting form of apology: 'if you feel offended by writing, my dear, which wasn't to you, then I apologize is a non apology. You cannot make a legitimate apology "if" someone feels offended. You need to make a correct apology because you have caused offence by your words, even if that offence was unintended. However, you have now doubles down on your words which you now know to be patronising.

As for your bluster 'I am offended that you got involved in a discussion between me and DoubleGrazing' I suggest you pull your horns in. Wikipedia works on civility and collegiality. That was neither. Please read WP:CIVIL

I have carefully disregarded your request not to reply to you further because your words required, nay invited, a reply. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Elinhprotianthrwpi. I'm afraid that you are having a pretty normal experience for somebody who signs up for Wikipedia and immediately tries the challenging task of creating an article. 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.

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. Such sources do not have to be in English, as long as they are reliable and independent. ColinFine (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine,

thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. I'll get to know wikipedia better. I don't not know the person I am writing the article for personally, if that's what you're assuming. I have read three of her books, and when I searched her, I found that she had written many books and found some articles written about her in greek newspapers and magazines. asking other people about her I also found out she is known, but from my understanding she is low profile person. in any case, I will post the articles in greek on reference and try submitting again. if that doesn't work, like I said above, I will submit her article when I can gather more cititaions and references. have a great day. thank you Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

09:46, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Pareekshamitra

• Pareekshamitra (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vikram Dharia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

want to know about the coverage

Pareekshamitra (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pareekshamitra: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but of the sources cited in this draft, IMDb is not considered reliable, and the only other source merely lists this person in the cast ie. provides no significant coverage. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

10:02, 1 November 2024 review of submission by CoachAni

• CoachAni (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Equality Hub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article has been referenced by independent sources wondering why it still got declined. There are some articles on wikipedia which have only two sources yet have been published. could there be other reasons why this article is being declined? CoachAni (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@CoachAni: the existence of other articles (the so-called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) isn't relevant. We know there are all sorts of problems among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we should create more of them.

Per the reviewer's comments, the sources don't establish notability. It's not enough that they are independent (and reliable), they must also be secondary, and provide significant coverage directly of the subject.

I don't know why you think there might be "other reasons" for declining this, other than what is stated on the decline notice – could you elaborate, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:13, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they are thinking it was declined for only having two sources, and since existing articles do, there must be another reason. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

CoachAni Please see other stuff exists. Each article or draft is judged on its own merits and not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by volunteers doing what they can when they can. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist, even for years, this cannot justify adding more inappropriate articles. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

10:07, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Aishuffg7

• Aishuffg7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:IW TANMAYA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IW TANMAYA: Video editor, frontend dev, Virtech Studio & PaintCraft founder, filmmaker, robotics enthusiast, working on a Safety Smart Band. Aishuffg7 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You offered no independent reliable sources.

You will need to disclose your connection to this person, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. You took a very professional looking image of this person and they posed for you. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

11:27, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Elinhprotianthrwpi

• Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Penelope Penny Koutourinis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hello wiki gurus, I can't seem to add the cited 'inline' to Penelope Penny Koutourinis' page, I don't know where to write the cited inline part in her article and what I have to write exactly. I looked at the info links provided, but I still can't work it out, so sorry, I am a beginner, please help with steps, thank you. most appreciated Elinhprotianthrwpi (talk) 11:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This duplicates the above thread; please stick to that thread, do not create additional threads. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

11:34, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Sandeephbk2024

• Sandeephbk2024 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pixel Studios Pvt Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What is the meaning "notable" Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sandeephbk2024 Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which outlines our policy. Qcne (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sandeephbk2024 If you are associated with the company, that must be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes i am associated with this company my company email id id [redacted] Sandeephbk2024 (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Sandeephbk2024 You must make a formal disclosure of that, see WP:PAID. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves. Wikipedia articles about companies summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 12:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

12:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Bakhos2010

• Bakhos2010 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Norme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My draft article have reliable sources, but why is it still declined? Bakhos2010 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 Please read with care about Reliable sources, Because I think you have not quite got it right. YouTube, especially, can be a challenge because it is user generated coated with little or no editorial rigour. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent But IShowSpeed's article have like several youtube videos references i think, and how is it still reliable and can be a article? Bakhos2010 (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy.

We have many inappropriate articles here. If you feel that the one you mention is not appropriate please suggest it for deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent I understand. I removed only one YouTube video source from the "Career" section, so it will now stay with just the YouTube video source from "(born November 5, 2004)". If I remove it, it will require a source, so I kept only one. What should i do next? Bakhos2010 (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you feel that the draft is ready, resumbit by clicking the blue button. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 As long as you have read the links I gave you then you have the information you need. If he passeds our criteria he passes. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent The English language from reliable sources is quite hard, but i've learned a bit, so i think it passes criteria. Bakhos2010 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 Then I wish you success. We learn by doing ever better. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

14:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Adamewhite

• Adamewhite (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Clara Miller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been working on this draft of a Wikipedia entry on a very important person and trailblazer in contemporary philanthropy. I keep hitting roadblocks because I keep being told that I haven't included "reliable sources," but the sources I'm citing are from the most preeminent periodicals and organs of contemporary philanthropy.

I'm not sure what else to do -- could someone help more concretely than just telling me to include "reliable sources?" Adamewhite (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamewhite Anything from PRNewswirse is a PR piece and has no value in verifying much, especially notability. Any organisation talking about its staff is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY is helpful here.

Significant coverage - in excess of three well crafted paragraphs - is required. You have many passing mentions

Amongst your sources are no big hitters.

All this means that you have a problem. I believe that is because you write this WP:BACKWARDS. To solve this, please research all the references you can find about Miller. Then discard the chaff. From the whet, create a storyboard which tells Miller's story, totally in your own words, with the facts cited by the references. One reference per fact, please, but, when a references encompasses several facts it may be re-used.

Here's the thing. If you cant find good references then no amount of wording will create notability, this is the abandonment point, before you have started writing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

My frustration here is that these references -- from Philanthropy Magazine, from Non-Profit Quarterly Magazine, from the New York Federal Reserve -- are all very legitimate sources documenting the the world of professional philanthropy.

Moreover, if the very foundation that has hired her as a president issues a news release that announces it, how is that not a primary source?

Also, the notion of "big hitters" feels very arbitrary -- what constitutes that? Who arbitrates this?

Clara Miller is a very important figure in this world and very famous inside as a trailblazer for women in what is typically a very male-dominated field. I have marshaled all of her positions and awards because I wanted to evidence her prominence -- I felt like this was a safer route than telling a story that involves claims that aren't materially specific.

For instance, a statement like "Miller is a major figure in the development of non-profit philanthropy" is incontrovertibly true, but how am I supposed to support a broad claim like that unless I show the impressive career trajectory that she has undertaken?

Given that I know firsthand how many deeply niche and frankly margin people have Wikipedia entries, I find it baffling that a very notable woman within this field is denied this. Adamewhite (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Adamewhite. "Notable" is in some ways an unfortunate choice of word, because it means something different from what people assume it means. Generally it means that there is enough reliably published independent material available to base an article on.

I haven't looked at most of your cited sources, but it is pretty clear that many of them are not independent of Miller: they are in some way repeating her words or those of her associates.

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.

One other question: what is your connection with Miller? Since you have asserted that you personally own the copyright of the picture you uploaded, you presumably have some connection, and need to be aware of the significance of editing with a conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, ColinFine. I had included a photo I thought was free of copyright, but I took it down to ensure that it didn't run into any copyright issue.

I work in philanthropy but do not know the subject of the entry. She is just a major figure in the field, and my colleagues and I were surprised that she did not have an entry. I volunteered to draft it as best I could.

As for the entries not independent of Miller, I'm not sure what these are. To which are you referencing? The major magazines of this field of philanthropy -- Philanthropy, Nonprofit Quarterly, etc. -- are not affiliated with her.

I've tried to include an online reference I can to vouch for every statement I've made -- unfortunately the world of philanthropy isn't as well-documented online as some other fields. However, if you could point to the problematic reference(s), I can try to find better ones. Thanks for any help you can provide! Adamewhite (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamewhite That the organisation say it has hired her verifies a simple fact, not notability.

It is worth reading about reliable surces to determine what is and is not relaible

Wikipedia requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. They must be secondary sources. Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. It records without infringing copyright what is said n secondary sources.

So, looking at Philanthropy Magazine, from Non-Profit Quarterly Magazine, from the New York Federal Reserve -- are all very legitimate sources documenting the the world of professional philanthropy yu need to determine which is primary and which is secondary. You will also run into WP:SELFPUB at some point. If oyu are citing, for example, learned papers by Miller, then peer review is important as is whether those papers are cited by others in the course of their work, and by whom and how many instances.

There is no single set of rules. Your job is to navigate the somewhat unpredictable seas with care. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

FiddleFaddle, I've cited the organization that hired her to reference her hiring. The organization itself is a big one within philanthropy -- if you would like me to then cite references to its significance, that is a separate issue.

Again, this is the trap of "notability" -- if a random Wikipedia editor hasn't heard of something, does that really constitute lack of notability? I don't know much about, say, cricket, so if I'm confronted with an article about a cricket player, who am I to say whether the cricket player is "notable"? If all the citations are to cricket magazines, how am I to know these magazines are "reliable" or "independent"? Adamewhite (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I declined your draft because the awards are not notable, ie they have no Wikipedia articles and many of your asources are press releases which are not considered independent, you have re-submitted with very little improvement which is disruptive and pointless. Theroadislong (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Adamewhite, there is help available in the form of WP:RSPSS, which lists many common (and uncommon!) sources and the consensus that's been formed for them. This is also why we suggest draft writing should be an end game scenario for editors - if you spend time working on other articles, discussing with other editors, you start to understand what sort of sources are suitable and what are not. A few examples to help:

• If the article subject (or their CEO, employer, best friend, etc) has been involved in the source - like giving an interview - that source is not independent.
• If the source looks like it might have been written by a PR team, it probably came from the subject and is not independent. It may also be a paid-for advertorial and thus also unreliable.
• If the source has no author name or byline, and just says 'news team' or something like that, it may not be reliable.

In your example, you'd first check to see whether the cricket magazine looked legit - does it have author names for its articles? Does it include both positive and negative information? Does it clearly differentiate ads from articles? If unsure, you'd then head to the Reliable Sources list linked above, to see if it's there. If it's not, you could move to the reliable sources noticeboard to firstly search for previous discussions and then ask for help from fellow Wikipedians.

I don't see that anyone has pointed you to WP:42 yet, but that's our 'golden rule' in terms of sources. If you want to establish notability, the sources you use to do so must conform to the triple criteria there. It can be a lot to take in all at once so don't feel rushed; there's no deadline and you can take your time looking through all the information and comparing your sources. And we are, of course, always here and happy to help! StartGrammarTime (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

14:29, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Digimoji

• Digimoji (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jagendra Swarup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to write it in the language of an encyclopaedia article Digimoji (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Digimoji An encyclopedia article does not draw conclusions, as your draft currently does. Articles here just summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That said, rejection seems a bit harsh, surely? As an elected legislator, notability shouldn't be an issue. It needs a bit more work on language, and the referencing could be improved also, but this should be fundamentally publishable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I agree, so I have reverted the rejection.

@Digimoji Take heart. I may review the draft or I may leave it to another. I think they pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, and I may simply accept it and allow the community to decide. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Accepted on the basis that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process in my view 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree- he's notable as a legislator. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

14:43, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Dr.bobbs

• Dr.bobbs (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gary Stockdale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with using citations with broken (archived?) links in Draft:Gary Stockdale. Specifically, these citations are to the Library of Congress. There are 4 such citations at Draft:Gary Stockdale.

I found these citations using Google searches, for example, a Google search for "Doctor Detroit" "Gary Stockdale" shows that a page at https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200015001/ contains the info I want. However, when I go to that URL, I get only "Sorry! We can't find what you're looking for. The page you requested could not be found." I'm not sure if this means that the page I want has been archived; but if it has, I don't know where to find the archived page, or an archive date.

Is such a citation usable, and if so, how to cite it, please? Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

14:45, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Edgar at ChariotEnergy

• Edgar at ChariotEnergy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chariot Energy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with my draft. It was seemingly declined because of the sources. I used other articles on Wikipedia for industry competitors as a reference for using sources, seemingly using sources that were relatively the same. One article in particular is Reliant Energy, which uses sources similar to sources that I used for this article draft, yet Reliant was published and this article has been declined. For example, there are sources Reliant uses such as Power to Choose, Power Engineering, Chron.com, Better Business Bureau, Energy Manager Today, that reflects sources that I've used for this article. While I did not use some of these exact same sources, I used sources that were relatively the same, such as Chron.com, Power to Choose, Better Business Bureau, and other industry websites. I just want to know why this article is being declined for sources not being used correctly. Edgar at ChariotEnergy (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Edgar at ChariotEnergy You have made an understandable, if poor, mistake in using any random article as a guide. Please see other stuff exists. These other articles themselves could be problematic and you would be unaware of this as a new user. There are many ways for inappropriate articles to exist and go unaddressed by a volunteer. We can only address what we know about. If you'd like to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so action can be taken. We need the help. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have received community vetting.

Press releases(businesswire) are useless for establishing notability. You have just summarized the routine business activities of your company; not independent reliable sources with significant coverage of your company that goes into detail about what sources see as important/significant/influential about your company- how it is notable as Wikipedia defines a notable company. I get that you think your company is notable, but what matters is that others see your company as notable.

If you've been asked to be here, please see WP:BOSS. In my experience it is very difficult for people in your position to write as Wikipedia requires. 331dot (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @LoneStarScribe (I'm pinging you under that name, because I'm not sure if the ping will get to you under a name which is not your user name but a redirect of your User page). Unfortunately, your experience is a very common one for people who register and immediately try the challenging task of creating a new article. It is not surprising that you are unaware of how Wikipedia works.

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..

I guessing that this won't be welcome advice: but would you in your job start working on a new system without getting any training first? ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

15:12, 1 November 2024 review of submission by 41.76.101.246

• 41.76.101.246 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Oya (The goddess of gods) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can an award winning be a notable reason to have this article on Wiki 41.76.101.246 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, winning an award that has a Wikipedia article about the award itself(like Academy Award or Filmfare Award) would make the film notable, but merely being nominated does not. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

15:44, 1 November 2024 review of submission by MarkWHowe

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

I see a reviewer's comment but I cannot find the talk page where I can respond to it. I am looking for a talk page where the reviewer's comment is shown and a [reply] can be used. Not found on either mine or his talk page. MarkWHowe (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@MarkWHowe: they won't be on any talk page. If the reviewer added comments (optionally), they will appear on the draft page itself, below the decline notice. This is done often, but not always, so there may be no comments at all, other than the templated ones in the decline notice itself.

You can always approach the reviewer on their talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I quoted it at the talk page for the draft as a discussion item and then answered it. Do you think that might work?? I get confused by so many pages and procedures but it is getting better.  :-) MarkWHowe (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

For future reference, ping in the editor by doing an @ symbol followed by their username, in this instance @Dan arndt and @Theroadislong. Qcne (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, my head is spinning! So many things. Great hint, thanks. MarkWHowe (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

18:54, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Anishka Ranjeevi

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

why is rejected Anishka Ranjeevi (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason was left by the reviewer; Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself. See WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

21:48, 1 November 2024 review of submission by Ilnarildarovuch

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

All sources are located on the official libssh website, but they are very strangely scattered throughout the site, so the links only libssh.org Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ilnarildarovuch we require independent sources which are not affiliated with Libssh, think tech magazines. Qcne (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

It is quite difficult to find sources of this type, as it turned out, but... There are only two of them. Will that be enough? Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

If you give me links to the two sources you found, I can make a judgement. Qcne (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, here it is: [1]https://expertbeacon.com/introduction-to-libssh-the-ultimate-ssh-library/ [2]https://devdoc.net/linux/libssh2-1.9.0-docs/libssh2-vs-libssh.html Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

1. 1 I don't think is reliable - it looks to be some kind of SEO-blog, I don't think has any editorial standards.
2. 2 Is okay, but ideally we'd want some kind of analysis instead of "here's the features in a list". Perhaps Libssh appears in academic tech books? Try searching Google Books.

Qcne (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

First book (Advanced Penetration Testing - Hacking the World's Most Secure Networks), Page 39: https://github.com/mrH0411/Ebook-EthicalHacking/blob/main/Advanced%20Penetration%20Testing%20-%20Hacking%20the%20World's%20Most%20Secure%20Networks%20by%20Wil%20Allsopp.pdf (proof of libssh works with SSH protocol). Second is documnetation from Cisco company: [3]https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/lan/catalyst9500/software/release/17-14/configuration_guide/sec/b_1714_sec_9500_cg/ssh_algorithms_for_common_criteria_certification.pdf (Every page, but not sayed about libssh, but it can confirmed, if found email *@sshlib.org) Ilnarildarovuch (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Ilnarildarovuch. I haven't looked at those sources, but from your description, it sounds as if they are not helpful, because it doesn't sound as if any of them provide significant coverage of libssh.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject - almost nothing else. What you (or I, or any random person on the Internet) know about the subject is irrelevant, unless it is backed up by adequate sources.

If you can find some reliable independent published accounts of the how and the why that libssh came to be, then you can write an article based on those accounts. Otherwise, no. ColinFine (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2

09:09, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Sleepytimecat

• Sleepytimecat (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Trans Aid Cymru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article didn't meet notability guidelines, I was looking for further advice on what areas it's specifically lacking in. Would be a huge help in me figuring out how to move forward with it :) Sleepytimecat (talk) 09:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sleepytimecat I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion.

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it?

The awards do not contribute to notability as the awards lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). You've summarized the work of the organization but not described its particular influence. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sleepytimecat: I only had a quick look at the sources, didn't analyse them in any depth, but it seems to me they're either primary, or where secondary then they don't provide significant coverage directly of this organisation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@331dot Cheers for the fix! I was a volunteer for the organisation in the past.

@DoubleGrazing Thanks, that's really helpful, I did wonder if that might be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepytimecat (talk • contribs) 09:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Unless you can find several such sources, there is no point in spending further time on this draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

09:18, 2 November 2024 review of submission by HindutvaWarriors

• HindutvaWarriors (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Squint Neon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please tell me improvements in reference and citing? HindutvaWarriors (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@HindutvaWarriors Sure. Add and properly format reliable sources, write in a neutral tone, and avoid using AI. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

09:43, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Christian Ries

• Christian Ries (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Eddie Ware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cf. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Christian_Ries#Eddie_Ware_moved_to_draftspace

Hello, I wrote an article about the very little known blues pianist Eddie Ware and cited a book (that I own) with a specific reference to the page in the book (which I read), a website (which I read) and the worldwide largest music database discogs.com (which I looked up). Thus, my submission is adequately supported by reliable sources which can be verified. I doubt that Johannes Maximilian has read the book and owns a record of this blues pianist, which are in fact quite rare. So here I am, a scientist knowing how to correctly cite and write a Wikipedia article being blocked by someone ignoring the references I provided and declining my submission.

Why is Johannes Maximilian's position not being questioned? He ignores my references and accuses me of not providing enough references in the draft article.

Thank you in advance, Christian Ries (talk) 09:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Have you asked them directly?

The body of the draft is completely unsourced, sources need to be in line next to the text they are supporting. "Very little known" almost certainly means this musician does not meet the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A passing mention and a blog post are not sufficient to establish notability, Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable sources.

(edit conflict) @Christian Ries Discogs and blogs are not reliable sources, as they are both user-generated. A single mention in a book is not significant coverage. In addition, please assume good faith and avoid casting aspersions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Christian Ries: this was absolutely correctly declined for insufficient referencing (could have additionally been declined for lack of evidence of notability), and any reviewer would have likely done the same; there is no need to personally attack the reviewer who happened to be the bearer of bad news (or rather, news you didn't like). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You say "Beside the website I mention there are no other on-line sources about this exceptional, but mostly unknown blues pianist." this is a VERY strong indication that we cannot have an article about him. Theroadislong (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

12:19:47, 2 November 2024 review of submission by ZiWinger

• ZiWinger (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

ZiWinger (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Need help? On Draft:Countryball World.

We base articles on what reliable, independent sources say. Your draft has zero sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

13:16, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Bock1234

• Bock1234 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:King Flekky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, please help me I have been trying this for the pass one month but it unfortunately declined please help me out on this article. Bock1234 (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

None of your sources are reliable or independent. Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

14:33, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Ahmad87861

• Ahmad87861 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alamsher LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please help me to publish this biography, i few days ago some contributors ask me for notability, so here is the evidence of notability (https://samaa.tv/2087323388-peshawar-s-emerging-musician-chooses-authenticity-over-fame), and please understand Alamsher LLC as a musician not a company, please tell me whats the problem now ? Ahmad87861 (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

A single source written by a computer science student at Huzaifa Aftab Shaheed Higher Secondary School, Peshawar is unlikely to be significant enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

17:02, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Andrewworley048

• Andrewworley048 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Syria wildfires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yes I created an article of Syria wildfires it was declined because of of it said was unreliable sources that is not true it was a reliable source tell me what was wrong with it because there is nothing wrong with it, please reconsider this. thanks. Andrewworley048 (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You offered one source. An article should summarize multiple independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I have declined it and tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

17:32, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Thanosb94

• Thanosb94 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Iakovos Antonios Armaos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

can I use the Youtube channels of major tv and radio platforms as reference to showcase that one is making frequent appearances in TV and radio shows as a commentator on politics?

If not, what else could I do?

I have tried to go the websites of these platforms, but they do not showcase concrete and concentrated results for those who are guests on their platforms. Only random results regarding (I guess) the way each website is built.

Thanosb94 (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Thanosb94: yes, you can use reliable and reputable media outlets' own official YouTube channels as sources; that's just about the only acceptable use there is of YouTube as referencing. That said, someone appearing on media as a commentator almost certainly doesn't help establish notability, because being interviewed or otherwise commenting on some matter is not about them, it's them talking about something else. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Thanosb94. 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) 22:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

18:42, 2 November 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A473:63DF:1:E028:9E5A:A95A:E927

• 2A02:A473:63DF:1:E028:9E5A:A95A:E927 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Polish Student Association Groningen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

To whom it may concern,

I'm a former vice president of PSAG and a honourary member. I would like to complete the Wikipedia article about our association. I'm aware of the limited sources mentioning PSAG. However, there can not be a more reliable and stable source than a university. Of course there are different universities out there, but University of Groningen is world's top research academic institution.

Please, let me know how could we secure the validation of wiki page about PSAG without additional references.

Sincerely,

Maciej Gladys 2A02:A473:63DF:1:E028:9E5A:A95A:E927 (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

18:43, 2 November 2024 review of submission by Bakhos2010

• Bakhos2010 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Norme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I worked on this draft article, adding sources i found on Google. Now, there are no more sources to find. Is it notable now? If not, I will still work on it sometimes, possibly not everyday. Bakhos2010 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bakhos2010 Seems to be WP:BLP1E, and that event is being a publicity seeking celebrity wannabe. So no. Others may hold different views. Submit it for review if you disagree with me. I will not review it 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@Timtrent I agree with you. I thought this draft article wasn't BLP1E, but it is, so i won't submit it until some reliable sources about Norme come. Bakhos2010 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

18:55, 2 November 2024 review of submission by WikiPsychology

• WikiPsychology (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Late-Adolescence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

And if I add more information and sources to my article, would there be a chance of it being accepted? WikiPsychology (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiPsychology However, as @I dream of horses said 'Most of this can be merged into adolescence, positive youth development, and young adult. ', which suggests that you may be on the wrong road. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

19:10, 2 November 2024 review of submission by 2601:14D:4881:CD00:C121:6513:2E62:D6A0

• 2601:14D:4881:CD00:C121:6513:2E62:D6A0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ajay Vishwakarma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please Advice 2601:14D:4881:CD00:C121:6513:2E62:D6A0 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have written an advertisement about yourself. It has been rejected, and will not proceed further. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

22:17, 2 November 2024 review of submission by CrimsonScarletBurgundyy

• CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Molina (danish-chilean singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I want to know if adding photos of living, real people violates the creative commons of wikipedia. By the way, I do not own the photos that I plan to add, nor are they of me (instead, they are of a singer). CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy that absolutely violates copyright. Do not do that. Qcne (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

How could I add the image of the singer? Is there a way or not? I'm just checking twice because I saw some pages that I believe that have photos of real people not owed by the uploader. Sorry CrimsonScarletBurgundyy (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@CrimsonScarletBurgundyy Pictures are almost always handled on Wikimedia Commons. This is a different web site. Commons:Licensing will give you a good overview.

You may only upload pictures which you have the right to upload. Things you find on the internet are not yours to upload and will result in loss of editing privileges on Commons or here, depending upon where they transgression is. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @CrimsonScarletBurgundyy. The answer to your question is that adding such photos doesn't necessarily violate copyright, but in most real cases it does. Only if you could get the copyright holder (who is usually the photographer, not the subject) to release the image under a licence that will permit anybody the world to reuse or alter the image for any purpose, can it be uploaded to Commons. (See Donating copyright materials).

However, please note that adding photos to your draft will not make any difference at all to whether it is accepted by a reviewer. That would be like trying to get a badly-built house accepted by the building control authorities and saying, "Look, I've painted this window beautifully!".

Like most new editors who immediately try the very challenging task of creating an article, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. 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) 22:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

22:43, 2 November 2024 review of submission by WhyBlockIP

• WhyBlockIP (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Doors (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just can't get approved, what do I do? WhyBlockIP (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@WhyBlockIP You read HELP:YFA and start again from scratch 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Rejected means there is nothing you can do. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That too! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

November 3

04:21, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Xavier Serif

• Xavier Serif (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Emilio Sfeir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please explain why this is not considered to be a reliable source:

https://repositorio.umsa.bo/handle/123456789/11306 Xavier Serif (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Xavier Serif: has someone said that it's not reliable? I don't think that's even cited as a source in your draft.

But since you ask, this appears to be a dissertation for an undergraduate-level degree, which per WP:THESIS are not considered reliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

05:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Ahmad87861

• Ahmad87861 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alamsher LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i have edited the refrence and make it more notable, please help me to publish it. Ahmad87861 (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ahmad87861: there is zero evidence of notability in this new draft, either. If a topic isn't notable, there's nothing you can do. If you keep recreating this tendentiously, you may get yourself blocked for spamming. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by notability, there is already a reference link to show the notability? Ahmad87861 (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ahmad87861: as already explained to you the last time you asked, a single source is not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, especially one written by a student of some sort, rather than a professional journalist or music critic. And there is absolutely nothing in this draft to indicate that the subject would be even remotely notable by the WP:MUSICBIO guideline, either.

Not to mention that the draft is unreferenced throughout, so we don't even know if any of it is true.

My advice would be to drop this now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, leme find more sources to show the notability. I'll update the draft soon as i find more reliable sources. Ahmad87861 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

07:27, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Xander du Plessis

• Xander du Plessis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Khivit Dessert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What should I change for this page to be submitted? Xander du Plessis (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Xander du Plessis: nothing; this has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.-- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

07:31, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Rosebabysu

• Rosebabysu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dai Ying (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like to ask if a person must have an exclusive interview report to prove his or her fame? Rosebabysu (talk) 07:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rosebabysu: what is an "exclusive interview report"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A person's "fame" is not relevant- we're looking for notability as Wikipedia defines the word; a person can be famous but not notable. It depends on the coverage in independent reliable sources, which must be in depth. In this case you are looking for this person to meet the notable creative professional definition or the broader notable person definition.

The awards you mention are meaningless towards notability as the awards lack articles themselves(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

10:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by PavlovTruth

• PavlovTruth (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pavlov Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My family has an entire book on our Russian Heritage. I've translated everything. Please show respect to our legacy. Im signing off forever, God Bless. PavlovTruth (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@PavlovTruth: be that as it may, your draft is completely unreferenced, and cannot therefore be accepted. As a bare minimum, you should cite the book you're referring to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is entirely unsourced and the MOS:PEACOCK language is overwhelming. Language like "embodying a proud heritage and tradition that represents the grandeur of Imperial Russia" and "the only surviving noble line truly "worthy of the Russian Empire" due to their unwavering commitment to preserving Russian customs, values, and traditions" or "The family’s unique blend of Russian imperial heritage and American frontier spirit has solidified their legacy as a rare bridge between the East and West, embodying both the sophistication of Russian aristocracy and the pioneering resilience of North America" is wholly inappropriate without ironclad sourcing, far beyond a single unreferenced book about the family. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

12:11, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Rsm2324

• Rsm2324 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:SIB Infotech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please advise how can we get the page shown on wikki what should be done Rsm2324 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rsm2324: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. It presents no evidence, or even suggestion, of notability, and is purely promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Blatant advertising and zero indication of passing WP:NCORP rejected correctly, there is nothing you can do. Theroadislong (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

14:42, 3 November 2024 review of submission by 98.113.99.90

• 98.113.99.90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Alex Glich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It was denied and I wish to know why to improve 98.113.99.90 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been rejected, and I've just requested speedy deletion on it. If you wish to write fantasy fiction, please find another platform for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

15:18, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Harezmli

• Harezmli (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jalaluddin's expeditions to India (1224-1225) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, first of all, I am curious about the reason why my page was rejected because I am researching the period sources and I also think that I have not done anything against Wikipedia rules. I would be happy if you respond to my message. Harezmli (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Tavantius Qcne (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

A draft oddly similar to this was previously rejected, with the draft's creator being blocked as a sockpuppet. Hence, I rejected the draft. In retrospect, rejecting it was probably too harsh. Tavantius (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

15:59, 3 November 2024 review of submission by Shybee24

• Shybee24 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shoaib Ejaz (Shybee) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

kindly tell me the reason Shybee24 (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It's pure spam, @Shybee24. Qcne (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

what?? how??? can you define? Shybee24 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Shybee24 See WP:SPAM. Qcne (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

20:36, 3 November 2024 review of submission by GalacticVelocity08

• GalacticVelocity08 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zachary David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my draft regarding this article was recently declined a couple days ago. I completely understand the reason as to why it was denied, however I am unsure on how to proceed. I discussed this with the individual on my talk page, but would like to seek additional guidance here.

The draft was declined due to a previous deletion discussion during late July/early August 2024. (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zachary_David). For context, I was not yet on Wikipedia at the time, and this was an entirely different version of the draft.

My draft currently has significant coverage, reliable sources, and in my opinion, notability. While I am aware of and understand WP:OSE, it is quite contradictory that all other drivers at the same level (or lower) have articles, and he does not. I understand that I am the one who has to prove what has changed since the AfD, but I find it a bit unproductive and redundant to wait while there is clear notability. I hope this makes sense and it doesn't sound like I'm whining, but I'm really not sure how to proceed (unless I just have to wait until he enters a higher series). Is the most logical step to bring this to https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review ?

links to relevant/most series:

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2024_Formula_Regional_Middle_East_Championship

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2024_Formula_Regional_European_Championship

(notice how other drivers that finished in similar positions all have articles)

link to failed undeletion request: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_400#Draft:Zachary_David

(not sure how to hyperlink under this. sorry) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

It may be quite contradictory that all other drivers at the same level (or lower) have articles, and he does not, but it is perfectly possible that this is the correct result, if it happens that independent commentators have chosen to write about them but not about him. (I'm not saying that that is the case, but I'm saying that it could be). His "level" is not relevant. ColinFine (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the response. For context, the two main websites that publish articles relating to these drivers are feederseries.net and formulascout.com. In the draft, there are articles from both of these websites.

He might not have as much coverage compared to his peers, but I believe that he still has significant coverage. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @GalacticVelocity08! Let's see if we can work this out. I'll have a look at some of your sources, and either tell you what's missing or ping the reviewer to see if they'd reconsider (or explain, if I made a mistake). First, though, I'm going to give you my standard spiel about sources, because it seems to help people. You are trying to establish notability by Wikipedia's standards by showing good sources. These sources should meet WP:42, the 'golden rule', which says you are looking for 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). All interviews must automatically be rejected as sources of notability, because they're not independent, and that tends to throw people off. It probably seems a bit weird, but this is the consensus editors have come to over years and years of discussion.

So with that in mind, I'm going to look at your first few sources. If they fail any of the triple criteria in WP:42, they don't show notability. This doesn't mean you can't use them for uncontroversial information like his birthday or family's names - but if you can find better sources with the same information, you should use those instead. For a living person, you also need to abide by WP:BLP (biographies of living people rules) so I'll mention that if there's a problem as well.

Source 1, ADAC, is brief biodata - it's not significant coverage.

Source 2, Formula Scout, looks good at a glance - I think this meets WP:42. Good job!

Source 3, TKART, is basically a press release - it's not independent (his employer will naturally want to publicize him and make him sound great).

Source 4, ABS-CBN, is an interview with David - it's not independent.

Source 5, ADAC (the second), also includes an interview - this means it's also not independent.

Source 6, another Formula Scout, is not significant coverage - he's only very briefly mentioned.

Source 7, F4 Championship, specifically labels itself as a press release, so it's not independent.

I hope that helps you sort through the rest of your sources and decide which to keep and which to discard. Remember to prioritize sources that meet WP:42, and get rid of as many that don't as possible! Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, I was actually unaware about the restrictions on how articles are considered independent. That makes a lot more sense. I'll work to try to find more independent articles that he is the subject of.

Two follow-up question though; I understand that I need to establish notability using independent sources, but am I able to use nonindependent sources for additional details and to help reinforce points? If so, is there a specific proportion of how many sources are needed to be considered notable? (I'm saying this because when looking at other motorsports articles, lots of them use these press release-esque sources. (again I know WP:OSE, just a good reference point for inspiration/precedence)).

Additionally, assuming I'm able to get the draft up to independent notable sourcing, will the AfD impact a future AfC? Just because of the low amount of time and how my declination was phrased, I don't think anyone would want to spend quite a bit of time improving the draft right now if it won't be usable for a couple months. Thank you in advance! GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You can use non-independent sources for uncontroversial information that he would be the best source for - for example you could use interviews with him to confirm his birthday, parents' names, if he gets married, that kind of thing. Don't worry about using them to reinforce points, though; one good, reliable source saying something is better than a hundred weak sources. Try to minimise your sources, using only the best you can find while still following WP:BLP. If you can't find a WP:42-compliant source for a statement, remove that statement. It might make your draft shorter, but it will increase your chances of acceptance.

The AfD will make a difference - you will want to read over what people said there, and make sure your draft addresses those problems. It looks to me as though most people were concerned that he didn't meet WP:GNG, the general notability guideline, so your draft needs to have some good WP:42-compliant sources to show he's notable. That should be easy if you can find the sources - you already have one, which is a good start. We usually say three rock-solid sources is the absolute minimum, if that helps!

The other thing was the obvious conflict of interest - I have to ask, just to be sure: are you Zachary David, or connected to him? Or are you simply a fan of either him or racing in general? Even if you are him, or connected to him, you are still permitted to create this draft and put it through AfC! We actually encourage people with a conflict of interest to use AfC, so that there can be independent review of the draft before it goes live. If you are connected to him, you would need to declare your conflict of interest, and make sure the draft is good, but given that there was a previous AfD you already want to make sure it's good so that wouldn't be much of an extra weight on you. StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

For the first two; Got it, thank you. I'll be sure to work on that, and I've already started reviewing my sources. Before I submitted the draft I figured that too many sources would probably be better than too little, but I'm realizing now that it's not really the case.

As for the third point, I have no connection to him nor even a fan. I completely understand why you asked this given the history of the page and the fact my account is new, but it's simply that I noticed someone who doesn't have an article, and who could probably qualify for one. (if you want, you can look at my edit history - i've edited in american timezones and on days that hes raced).

I'll try to resolve the sourcing issues and resubmit it for review soon. Thank you for all the help, the way you've explained it actually makes sense. Apologizes if I sounded a little pushy in the original message, I was just getting a bit frustrated lol. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry at all, this can be a frustrating experience and you've taken feedback well and asked good questions - you're fine! If it helps, writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and writing one about a living person is the hardest of all. So don't be discouraged; it takes time to get the hang of Wikipedia policies and standards, but there are lots of people who are happy to help out. As long as you listen to advice and read through linked policies, you'll be all good.

I'm glad you understand why I had to ask if you were David - we're usually happy to trust people's word if their actions match up, and yours do. I appreciate you answering clearly and openly! If you need help with assessing sources, or other problems with your draft, just pop back here with questions - or you're welcome to reach me on my talk page if you'd like. There's always someone around to point you in the right direction. :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

21:11, 3 November 2024 review of submission by NicePrettyFlower

• NicePrettyFlower (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Chop Kick Panda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article draft: Chop Kick Panda has been denied for creation because they were no referenced material. But they were actually links in the reference section. I think it is because I did not used the reference section properly. It is only because I am new to adding referenced material, so admin, fix the article draft and it's links in the reference section and then make it public. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to make it but I am new to it. I can't resubmit it now. What should I do. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing you can do, it's the end of the line for this draft. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your experience is a common one for new editors who attempt the challenging task of creating an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. 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) 22:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Bad news, I can no longer resubmit it. For more information, read the draft or read the latest message about the article on my talk page by @CoconutOctopus. NicePrettyFlower (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

November 4

00:15, 4 November 2024 review of submission by Beezy Gh

• Beezy Gh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:DJ Mono Gh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can I get an assistance with this article I am working if review and guidelines may help but if you can also hop on too great Beezy Gh (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)