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.
I created an entirely new artist page and tried saving the draft. For some reason, it doesn't let me. I cannot see the article or edit anything. Please help AZaMas (talk) 02:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HOW.
you were saying it wasn't notable even though i knew it was.
Now there exists a page on this topic!
even though i made it first!
(Personal attack removed) HarryNewart (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, my submission was rejected. However, I followed the same structure, style and I provided the same sources of another submission that instead is accepted and published (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamshed_Bomanji).
Can you please tell me what it is different?
Any help would be useful.
@FRAIOLI73: That draft was never actually reviewed. It was moved to mainspace by its original author. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 08:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FRAIOLI73: this draft has a number of issues, but the reason why it was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) is insufficient referencing. There is content which is not supported by citations, and at least in one case the source cited doesn't seem to support the content.
Note that we don't assess drafts by comparison to existing articles, many of which can also have their own problems, but rather by reference to the applicable guidelines and policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
08:46, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Mirkha Shahbaz[edit]
i don't understand why my article is rejected. plz, tell me what changes should I have to make to make it acceptable. plz, highlight the mistake. Mirkha Shahbaz (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirkha Shahbaz I'm assuming you're referring to User:Mirkha Shahbaz/sandbox, instead of Pakistan. The topic is already covered by the Necrocapitalism article, so it would be better if you improved the existing article instead. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft seems to be about a different topic, 'neurocapitalism'? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mirkha Shahbaz: FWIW, I also would have declined this, albeit for a different reason, namely lack of evidence of notability. A single sources is not enough to show that the concept is widely enough discussed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
11:50, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Shsalami[edit]
Hello,
Thanks for the quick rejection!
You rejected this article before my submission for review!
Can it be submitted by extending and adding more references
or is it rejected because I am the author of the base method?
Anyway, the promotion of a method is not an advertisement!
Please clarify the reason.
Hi @Shsalami. Your draft isn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia, as it seems to just be an academic paper you wrote. Wikipedia is not an academic paper repository. Qcne(talk) 11:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12:31, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Mother10[edit]
I have read about COI. And I think people might find I am too connected to Ancestris to write about it. I am one of the volunteers for this program, writing the Dutch documentation there. I saw sofar no Wikipedia page for the Ancestris program existed. So I decided to write one or at least to write anything here. I am trying to be as objective as possible. So not advertising but just describe.
I take the Gramps page as an example (also a genealogy program) and that page is accepted, so if i try to do it the same way i hope its acceptable too.
So I would appreciate if i can get some advise about how to proceed.
Its still draft, because it misses a lot and many links should be added to make it follow the wikipedia standards.
Thanks for reading,
Tineke Mother10 (talk) 12:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mother10 Since you have read about COI, please make the needed disclosure. "Just describe" is a form of advertising, at least on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about a topic. Any article about Ancestris must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability.
You haven't submitted it yet, but if you were, it most likely would not be accepted, because it just tells about it, it doesn't summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. If no such sources exist, this topic would not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment, I will try to follow what you said and read a bit more the articles you pointed to.
The only problem I have is that Ancestris is not so wellknown, so those sources might be difficult to find.
A bit like the chicken and the egg. But I give it a try. Mother10 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mother10 Wikipedia is the last place to write about something, not the first. Wikipedia summarizes what others already say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12:46, 13 June 2024 review of submission by MANISHSWAMI01[edit]
how can i start same article MANISHSWAMI01 (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MANISHSWAMI01 The "same article"? Don't. The draft was deleted under G11, meaning it was blatant promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that it was blatant promotion, and largely unsourced. Are you associated with this individual? 331dot (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how can i create another article on same subject. MANISHSWAMI01 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MANISHSWAMI01 Please answer my question. You need to learn more about Wikipedia and what we do here before you attempt to write another article. Please see the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13:16, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Alban2024[edit]
I need some help here, the Luan_Muça is a well know businessman in Albania and mention in a lot of independent websites Alban2024 (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alban2024 where has Luan been mentioned in reliable independent websites? Qcne(talk) 13:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written by Muca himself (see bottom), not independent.
Significant coverage, but seems to be a fake copy of Vox (the logos are different)
Seems to be a copy of the fake Vox source
Also seems to be a copy.
The government website isn't WP:SIGCOV either; it only mentions Muca once and is more about the company than him. Wikipedia in different languages have different notability standards, and the current sources do not establish notability here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the government website is not .gov.al but I can say for sure it is official website of prime minister of Albania. (check the home page)
voxnews .al is an Albanian news website which write in English.
you can check tvkan or top-channel websites, those are the top media tv and websites in Albania.
Probably article is not written as it might be but I strongly believe that Luan Muca is an successful businessman in Albania, with a large contribution so I think it deserve an article page in English Wikipedia. (like Samir Mane or other Category:Albanian businesspeople
Is any way, for edit it the article in order to be correct and approved here?
Thanks for the help :) Alban2024 (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alban2024: he may well be a successful businessman, but that isn't a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia.
BTW, what is your interest in this subject, are you acquainted with him, or have you been asked to write this article? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Yes, I know him in person but I am not paid or asked for doing this. As someone which working on technology, (I work as software development, I don't have a lot of experience on Wikipedia) I thought it deserve a Wikipedia article like the other business people in Albania.
The fact that I know him in person, I don't think it is a problem. I have tried to write the article in a way not to be "promotion" but just to summarise the facts that are now public domains.
Please let me know if I am wrong? :) Alban2024 (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alban2024 If you know him personally, you have a conflict of interest that you must disclose, see WP:COI for instructions. Not every businessman merits a Wikipedia article, and articles are not for merely summarizing facts. An article must summarize significant coverage of the person that discusses how the source sees the person as important/significant/influential as a person. Does this man have unique business strategies that have influenced others? Do independent sources discuss their impact on Albania? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this man have unique business strategies that have influenced others? Yes, correct, this is why I am writing the article. This is an example to follow
Do independent sources discuss their impact on Albania? Yes, They do!
I have no problem to disclose, I mean the fact that I know him...
So what you suggest, shall I edit the text, disclose the fact that I know him in person and resubmit for approval?
@Alban2024: please make the disclosure on your user page as instructed in the message posted on your talk page, then carry on editing the draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! I did!
I also add the citation of the article on government website.
Shall I submit for review?
once more, thank you for your help Alban2024 (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alban2024: I don't know where you (think you) made the disclosure, but I can't find anything in either of the two obvious places, your user page User:Alban2024 or the draft talk page Draft talk:Luan Muça. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I found it, you had put the disclosure in the draft itself. I've moved it to your user page, which is where that particular template is only used. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: OP blocked as a sock. --Finngalltalk 14:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13:17, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Ali4abs[edit]
Hi,
This is my first time trying to contribute, can somebody tell me what is wrong with this article? It is a copy of the German version of the Wikipedia page. So I am not sure why it was rejected. It has all the reputable sources as well. Ali4abs (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali4abs: I can't tell you why it was declined for the reason that it was, but I can tell you why I would have declined it. The sources (which aren't cited correctly, and are just inline external links, but still) don't show that the subject is notable in Wikipedia terms. Per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Worth noting also that each language version of Wikipedia is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements. Just because an article has been accepted into one version doesn't mean it will be necessarily accepted into another one. The English-language Wikipedia has almost certainly the strictest criteria for notability and verifiability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for the response. At least It is not more clear why a German version of the same entry can be accepted but not the english one. Can somebody ellaborate how I can show existence of a research institute with significant coverage? For example, In Germany we have many Helmholtz Assosciations. Out of 18 centers, 16 have Wikipedia entry in English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_Association). I was trying to add the 17th association entry. So I doubt the reason is notability. Unless I am missing something here.
I did not know I was not allowed to do inline citation, I guess I have to read the citation guides carefuly then. Most sources are also very reliable sources at least in Germany? (sr.de (which is the public broadcaster of the state of saarland), helmholtz.de (which is homepage of Helmholtz Assosciation announcing the new center), saarland.de (which is the website of state of Saarland, literally official government page), IHK aka Germany Chamber of Commerce)). So I am not sure as a German, beside inline citation issue I could guess the sources are not reliable and therefore causes the rejection. Is there a guideline one what is a reliable source in Germany for English Wikipedia? Ali4abs (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ali4abs, a few things:
RE: "I doubt the reason is notability" – just to clarify, this draft wasn't declined for notability reasons; I was saying that's why I would have declined it. And even I'm not saying that the subject isn't notable, I'm saying the sources currently cited don't prove that it is notable. It may well be, but this isn't evident. The evidence we need to see is described in the relevant notability guideline WP:ORG.
RE: "I did not know I was not allowed to do inline citation" – no, you are more or less required to do inline citations; you are not allowed to do inline external links, which is what you've done. You can reference the same external resources, but instead of just pointing to them with a link, you cite them using the appropriate citation template, eg. ((cite web)). See WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
RE: "Most sources are also very reliable sources at least in Germany" – I'm not (necessarily) saying that your sources aren't reliable; I'm saying they don't meet the full criteria of a source which contributes towards notability per WP:ORG, namely being at oncereliable, and entirely independent of the subject, andsecondary (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.), and providing significant coverage of the subject. In other words, reliability is important, but it isn't enough.
The submission was declined. The page of the previous ambassador András Kocsis was not. Please let me know which changes I need to make to the draft in order for it to be accepted. Thank you in advance, kind regards Embassyhunl (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601 only musicians who meet our special notability criteria for musicians merit an article on Wikipedia. You did not demonstrate notability. If you feel there has been a gross error or that you have improved the draft since the rejection, please reach out to @SafariScribeQcne(talk) 14:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17:24, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Dgatopoulos[edit]
I want to submit my article please Dgatopoulos (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just need to click the "submit your draft for review!" button on the screen at the bottom(I would suggest placing the text of your draft below it, not above it as it is now) but if you did so, it would be declined quickly, as it is completely unsourced. See WP:REFB. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18:18, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Mightythos77[edit]
My submission has been rejected for a third time, for "insufficient" content and encouraged to be merged with another tiny and incomplete draft. This is ridiculous. I spent the last few weeks trying to bring it in line with the "Manual of Style" and it has 40 different and verifiable sources and far more content in every way possible. I am aware of the existence of the original page in the Draft space, but it is meant to be a placeholder for what I put together and the author of that particular draft knows this. That page was rejected previously at the author's request. My biggest mistake when I began was to work in the "sandbox" rather than in that "Draft" page and I am sorry for that.
The draft 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) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Mightythos77 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are talking about the three names who are on the German language Wikipedia, yes? The German language Wikipedia comes up as an external site when linked in the main body and I was told on my talk page to move all external links to the citations section. I could move them back to the main body where they were, or delete the links totally but what then? I don't want three unlinked names to be the reason it gets declined again. Mightythos77 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emily is well known. Her page was rewrite few months ago and wasn't reviewed. Can someone please review it?
Thanks Shinaimm (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinaimm We do not review on request. "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,334 pending submissions waiting for review." Hard as this may seem, reviewers each have different ways of working, and it is not a queue. Please continue to improve the draft while you await review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23:02, 13 June 2024 review of submission by Stoja2024[edit]
My first draft of this page was declined with this reason "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources.". The sources I have used are considered very reputable in the Art world in Australia, also the newspaper cited is one of the main papers in Victoria, Australia. I just made a minor edit to include links to one of the main public galleries in Australia. I have based these sources on wikipedia pages for other Australian artists. If you still consider this inadequate please provide additional details about the inadequacy. Thanks Stoja2024 Stoja2024 (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stoja2024: the sources may well be reliable, but they don't adequately support the information, as there is quite a lot of unreferenced content – eg. the 'Early life and education' section is entirely unreferenced. In articles on living people (WP:BLP), every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will fix that. Stoja2024 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23:09, 13 June 2024 review of submission by 183.77.158.192[edit]
Whenever you're planning to translate from other language versions to English, the first thing you need to do is check that the sources in the original article are sufficient to meet our notability and verifiability standards, which are higher than in any other language version that I'm aware of at least. (Either that, or the original article may be so old that standards were more relaxed back when it was created.) If they aren't sufficient, you need to try to find more and/or better sources. If you can't, then there's no point in even starting to translate, as you're likely wasting your time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 14
07:38, 14 June 2024 review of submission by Thekhyberboypk[edit]
I am writing to request your assistance in creating a Wikipedia page for Metrix Pakistan, a organization working in underprivileged areas of Pakistan.
About Metrix Pakistan:
Metrix Pakistan is dedicated to [ Metrix Pakistan is an organization established in May 2022 by Hassan Nisar. Headquartered in Pakistan, the organization focuses on promoting technological education and entrepreneurship in rural areas. Its primary objective is to create a sustainable ecosystem in underprivileged regions, bridging the gap in access to technology and educational resources. Through innovative initiatives and collaborative efforts, Metrix Pakistan strives to drive economic growth, social progress, and community empowerment in Pakistan's rural communities.
Previous Attempts:
We previously attempted to create a page for Metrix Pakistan but it was unfortunately rejected. We understand the importance of providing reliable sources and meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Request for Assistance:
We kindly request your guidance on creating a compelling and informative draft that meets Wikipedia's standards. We have compiled over 36 reputable news links about Metrix Pakistan, but we are open to alternative strategies for demonstrating their notability.
Thank You:
We appreciate your time and support in helping us create a Wikipedia page for this impactful organization.
Sincerely, Thekhyberboypk (talk) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thekhyberboypk first of all, the references are poorly formatted, see Help:Referencing for beginners. I haven't taken a look at all the sources yet, but I noticed around half of them are written by "Web Desk". Who is that? Also, who's "we"? The draft needs multiple reliableindependent sources that have significant coverage on the subject. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate your guidance on the importance of properly formatted references and will review Help for beginners to improve the formatting.
Regarding your question about the sources attributed to "Web Desk," this term refers to articles written by the web department of reputable newspapers. These are typically staff-written pieces that do not attribute a single author but are published by the editorial team of the news outlet. Thekhyberboypk (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thekhyberboypk: firstly, who is "we" in your question? Please note that Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one individual's use only. If more than one of you are using the account, the others must set up their own accounts.
Secondly, what is your relationship with this organisation, are you eg. an employee or a volunteer? I will post a conflict-of-interest (COI) query on your talk page, please respond to it.
As for your question, the notability standard you need to meet is WP:ORG. Please study it carefully, so you understand what is expected. Then choose the best 3-5 (not 35!) sources that meet that standard, and summarise what they have said about the organisation, citing them as your references. This gives you the appropriate content and the necessary proof of notability all in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that I am a volunteer with this organization. The organization is dedicated to working in underprivileged areas of Pakistan. I am not an employee, and I do not receive any compensation or benefits from the organization for my contributions.
I hope this provides the necessary context to address any potential conflict of interest concerns. Please feel free to ask any further questions or request additional information if needed. Thekhyberboypk (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thekhyberboypk: in that case, please make the COI disclosure as instructed on your talk page, as you still have a COI even if you are not paid for your efforts (which would make you subject to the related but more specific paid-editing COI rules). Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your guidance. I have made the COI disclosure as instructed on my talk page.
To clarify, I am a volunteer with the organization, which works in underprivileged areas of Pakistan. Although I am not paid for my efforts, I understand that this still constitutes a conflict of interest, and I will adhere to the related COI guidelines.
I appreciate your assistance and will ensure all contributions meet Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, reliability, and notability. Thekhyberboypk (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thekhyberboypk If you think that you disclosed, you didn't- at least I don't see where you did. You need to do this on your user page(click your username to access your user page). 331dot (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thekhyberboypk The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
If you are associated with this organization, that must be declared, see conflict of interest and paid editing. I would also add that only a single person should have exclusive access to this account, and they may not share access.
I'm glad that this organization does good work, but Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about good works. Any article about this organization must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You have provided a list of sources, but not summarized their contents- and it seems that the sources just tell of the activities of the organization. That's not significant coverage, we are looking for sources that on their own, and not based on materials from the organization(like interviews and press releases), tell what they see as important/significant/influential about the organization. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I have added the categories you mentioned and included all reputable links to support the content.
To address the conflict of interest (COI) concern, I would like to clarify that I am a volunteer with this organization, which works in underprivileged areas of Pakistan. My involvement does not include any paid activities, and I have declared my association as per Wikipedia guidelines.
I understand that Wikipedia articles must summarize significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. I have reviewed the sources provided and ensured they are independent, with significant coverage not based solely on materials from the organization such as interviews and press releases. The sources highlight what third parties see as important, significant, and influential about the organization's work.
Additionally, I confirm that only a single person has exclusive access to this account, and it is not shared with others.
Thank you for your guidance. I will continue to refine the draft to ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliable sourcing. Thekhyberboypk (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that being a volunteer can still be "paid" editing, if you intend to put the experience on a resume to obtain a paying job later. Could you put the three (and only three, please) sources that you feel do as I've described? Because I didn't see such sources, but maybe I missed it. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thanks,
You can check google " Metrix Pakistan" there are many articles. 39.41.148.1 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to log in when posting. It's not up to me to make your case for you, please provide the three sources you best feel provide significant coverage of this organization. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12:03, 14 June 2024 review of submission by Alejandro Magno de[edit]
I think this article should be created by a specialist. The article meets Wikipedia requirements and guidelines. I think Wikipedia should contain information from relevant people. I have seen pages that do not contribute anything here but nevertheless they are still here , Whether on a whim or because someone authorized simply created it and still keeps it (under custody )the disadvantages is unfair . Alejandro Magno de (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alejandro Magno de I fixed your link, it needs the "Draft:" portion. Please see other stuff exists. Articles are not judged based on the presence of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not removed yet, and as a new user you would be unaware of what is appropriate. Your draft is poorly sourced and shows no indication of notability. Please see the comments left by the reviewer, as well as the policies linked to. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 15
06:37, 15 June 2024 review of submission by Wikicont12[edit]
what the hell is going on when all the reference are reliable and the content is appropriate you people still targeting to disapprove why if you peoples don't want to work with rightful then shut off this fucking platform Wikicont12 (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikicont12: interesting how you put that, "still targeting to disapprove" [emphasis mine]. Your account is one week old, with six edits under your belt, and this is the first time this particular draft was declined. When and where was it that you've previously felt "targeted"? Was that under this or a different account? And what does "targeting" even mean? Please provide details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13:15, 15 June 2024 review of submission by Lokiiru[edit]
Help me find the copyright of an image! I'm trying to get a headshot of the person in the page above, and he has one in this website.Lokiiru The company is South Korean, and I can't find the copyright anywhere despite it surely having one. (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lokiiru: I don't know which image you mean, but unless it clearly indicates that it is available under a licence compatible with Wikipedia, you must assume it isn't. In any case, this isn't really an AfC matter, as images have no bearing on whether a draft will be accepted or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! This got sent to AfC because I clicked the link on the draft page to ask for help. My bad for not checking :) While I'm here, the person I wrote the draft about is mentioned on the following pages: Ciipher, Evnne, Boys Planet, Keita (given name), for notability. He is the only unlinked person on the given names page, so I wanted to make a page for him. Thanks again! Lokiiru (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Chaotic Enby, I need your help please, tell me what can I do? What kind of issues did I have a problem with?
I look forward to your reply. Tjiundje (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping: Chaotic EnbyCourtesy link:Draft:The Licius Family@Tjiundje, the draft has zero useable sources to establish notability: 1 and 2: Their YouTube bio, self-published and not reliable. 3: Facebook, see WP:FACEBOOK, not reliable. 4. His profile in a place he's worked in, not independent. 5 and 6: Wikipedia, see WP:CIRCULAR, never reliable. 7: His profile in another place he's worked in, again, not independent.Also, looking at your username, it seems to be an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is my daft? Tjiundje (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you not read anything I wrote above? The draft has been declined again. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got it, is only about the issue raised? 197.233.202.222 (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @CanonNi, thank you for your feedback. Is only about the issue raised? Tjiundje (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question, but the draft will almost certainly be declined if it is resubmitted now. It currently has 5 references, none of which establishes notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let me rewrite as the one thing almost done. Tjiundje (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's completed... I look forward to your reply. Tjiundje (talk) 02:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I've declined it again. Please do not resubmit without improvement. None of the five sources are useable, and the draft is promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry for resubmitting without improvement... What can I do? Is it about the five sources that are usable? Please show me. Where can I find it? Tjiundje (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean reference I must clear none of it. Tjiundje (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you said that it currently has 5 references, none of which establishes notability. But I am still misunderstanding what can I do? Tjiundje (talk) 03:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you should do is to give up this vain attempt to write an article about yourself: as you have been told several times, this is a bad idea, will almost certainly not work, and will waste a lot of your time and other people's time.
If you insist on going ahead with it, you will need to find several sources, each of which meets all the criteria in golden rule: ignore everything written, published, or commissioned by you or your friends, associates, or agents, or based on your words (eg in interviews or press releases); ignore everything in social media, blogs, or user-generated sites such as wikis and iMDB; ignore everything that does not have at least a couple of paragaphs about you specifically.
If you can find at least three such sources, the next step will be to forget every single thing that you know about yourself, and write a summary of what those sources say.
Do you see why writing an autobiography on Wikipedia almost never works? ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 16
06:59, 16 June 2024 review of submission by David.G.82.21[edit]
Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback on the article. I have re-edited the content to align with the suggestions, ensuring a neutral and encyclopedic tone. The updated context now highlights the achievements of various players, such as Raoni Medina and Jordan Matthews, who have each secured the top scorer position multiple times in different seasons. The fact that Alejandro Maroto is the all-time top goal scorer is presented as part of the overall statistics, consistent with the way top goal scorers are featured in other Wikipedia articles about football or basketball. His picture in the main frame follows this established practice.
Additionally, regarding the feedback about unverifiable information, the main references are the official NFL and NFS websites, where the goal statistics can be checked. Please let me know if there are any other changes you would like me to make. I appreciate your time and constructive feedback.
Kind regards,
David David.G.82.21 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft looks to me like original research. The paragraphs of text (which are generally the most important part of a Wikipedia article) are almost unsourced. You would need some reliable source which discuss specifically the subject (in the title) - not just Futsal, or the leagues, or clubs, or players. ColinFine (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
09:01, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Khawar2003[edit]
Effect of electromagnetic interference on modern day communication systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I just published my article on said topic but it's showing some kind of error. Kindly check it so that I may upload it. Thanks Khawar2003 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Khawar2003: I don't see that it's showing any error. If you tell us exactly what you see, and why you think it's an error, someone may be able to help you. However, I have seen two problems. Firstly, you have posted three copies of the same page, two as drafts and one as a user page. There is no benefit at all in having more than one copy of a page, and it can cause problems, as making it difficult for editors to keep track of changes. I have therefore deleted two of the copies, leaving Draft:Electromagnetic interference on Modern day communication systems in place. Secondly, the pages you have posted have been written in Urdu, but this is the English language Wikipedia and all contributions should be in English. You may like to contribute to Urdu Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10:12, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Countystat[edit]
Thanks for the reply Countystat (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inre redirected that article because it is presumably notable and quite likely to pass an AFD. However, when an article need more improvement or not yet for a standalone article, we redirect. I have anyway, restored the article and tagged it for improvements. @Countystat, remember any other editor can draftify it at any time or redirect back. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Countystat (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
15:28, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Viv moira[edit]
He is known and well-integrated in the occult scene (e.g. contact to DuQuette, Sanders, etc.). All sources are secondary, some even published academical. What else could I do? Maybe I used the wrong category. Viv moira (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16:11, 16 June 2024 review of submission by HCR24[edit]
Help with WP:NPROF HCR24 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I received a comment from an editor that my draft of H. Glenn Penny might meet WP:NPROF, if I "remove the primary sources or ones directly connected to the article. (See WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and WP:SIRS)."
Am still new here, can you please advise which sources I would have to remove from the draft of article for the article to be accepted?
Help much appreciated. Thank you! HCR24 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier version of the article was sourced with references too close to the subject. However, it has been published to mainspace. Incase you plan on writing articles, e.g an academic, and author, always find well written reviews of the book they had written. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
17:00, 16 June 2024 review of submission by MintSpiral[edit]
This submission was denied despite meeting sufficient notability guidelines, which I confirmed in live support. The reviewer has not provided any further information regarding the reason. At a minimum, 1, 2, 5 and 11 of WP:MN are satisfied. MintSpiral (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not reliable as they seems like advert. I have move the article to mainspace with consideration of the charts. @MintSpiral, you may now add reliable source to the "Early life and career" section to verify the contents desirable of citation. Thanks @Qcne for the courtesy ping. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 19:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
18:56, 16 June 2024 review of submission by Li-reg[edit]
Hello, my draft (Draft:Yeshayahu Folman) is still waiting for a review and I would love help with it... Thank you! Li-reg (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Li-reg, as stated the review process may take three months or more, as this is a volunteer process and drafts are reviewed in no particular order. There are 3,300 drafts waiting to be reviewed.
I'll note there are a couple of statements in your draft without in-line citations i.e. his education and the personal life section. Qcne(talk) 19:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne: Subject is deceased, and this doesn't seem like the sort to have BLP protections extended to two years postmortem. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 19:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 17
01:23, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Electric design[edit]
How can I post an English version on Wikipedia in the future?
I just want to post an English translation of an existing Japanese page.
Thank you in advance. Electric design (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see translation. If the ja-wiki article is sourced to the standard that is a non-negotiable requirement for new articles in en-wiki, then you may translate it. Most existing articles in most versions of Wikipedia (including many older articles in en-wiki, by the way) are not sourced to that level, and simply translating them will not generate something which is acceptable in en-wiki. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
08:31, 17 June 2024 review of submission by 39.41.181.140[edit]
Subject: Request for Reconsideration and Support for Metrix Pakistan Wikipedia Draft Page
Dear Wikipedia Team,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request your reconsideration and support for the Metrix Pakistan Wikipedia draft page, which was recently rejected. I understand that the page may not have met the necessary criteria at the time, but I would like to bring to your attention that Metrix Pakistan is a reputable organization doing remarkable work in Pakistan.
We plan to add more comprehensive information to the page, including details about their projects, achievements, and impact on the community. We believe that Metrix Pakistan's contributions warrant a Wikipedia page, and we would like to request your assistance in making that possible.
Please consider changing the status of the draft page and providing guidance on how we can improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards. We appreciate your time and support in promoting valuable content and recognizing deserving organizations like Metrix Pakistan.
Please tell us who "we" is. If you represent this organization, that must be disclosed, please see WP:COI and WP:PAID. Note that the reputability and work of the organization is not relevant as far as we are concerned, we are only concerned with if the organization receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, coverage that doesn't just document its existence and activities, but goes into detail about how the sources see it as important/significant/influential as an organization, how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.
Rejection typically means that the draft will not be considered further. If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metrix Pakistan Wikipedia page that I created, which was recently declined, Although I understand the decision, I'm eager to enhance the page and showcase the organization's remarkable achievements. Going forward, I plan to add more detailed information, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance and support in this process. Could you kindly reconsider the page's status and provide feedback on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards? I'm committed to creating a comprehensive and accurate page that highlights Metrix Pakistan's valuable contributions. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. 39.41.181.140 (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make a duplicate thread; please edit this existing thread, and respond to my post above. 331dot (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're Thekhyberboypk, please log in when editing, as already previously pointed out. And please make the COI disclosure that you said you had made, but which I still can't find anywhere. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your message. I apologize for not logging in when editing, and I will make sure to do so going forward.Regarding the Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure, I understand the requirement and hereby disclose that I have a connection with Metrix Pakistan. I, Thekhyberboypk, have a vested interest in the content of this page as a volunteer for Metrix Pakistan Thekhyberboypk (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thekhyberboypk (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thekhyberboypk: yes, thank you, you said that already before. However, this needs to be stated either on your user page, or on the talk page of every article and draft to which the COI relates, or both. This thread will be archived in a matter of days, and in any case no one is likely to come here looking for the disclosure. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A comment on your references: the five-sentence draft has 35 references all placed at the end of the draft. That is not how referencing should be done, and more references does not equal better referencing. There's a brief explanation of this in the sections "Relevance" and "Copies" on this page of advice. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12:59, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Chibuzookoro[edit]
Chibuzookoro (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chibuzookoro please be patient. Like the template says, This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,280 pending submissions waiting for review.. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13:39, 17 June 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:4811:5F0:B463:EEAB:2F9C:1F5C[edit]
I am totally okay with my article being declined. However, the comment says that I can continue to edit the article on Tesla, Inc, but that article is off limits for public editing. Is it possible to open up that article for editing? Thanks! 2600:1700:4811:5F0:B463:EEAB:2F9C:1F5C (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur was recently declined due to concerns about the references not meeting the notability guidelines. However, the sources mentioned in the article are from reputable newspapers in Pakistan, including Dawn and The Tribune, which are considered the most prestigious papers in the country.
Could clarification be provided on why these sources were not considered sufficient to establish notability? What specific issues are present with the references, and how can they be improved to meet Wikipedia's standards?
What steps need to be taken to address the concerns raised by the reviewer and resubmit the article? Uohabacasu (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming it's not a coincidence that we have at the same time drafts being submitted on Metrix Pakistan and its founder. How did you pick this particular subject to write about, @Uohabacasu? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of Hassan Nisar Haripur was selected for encyclopedic coverage based on available sources and potential notability. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, any person, organization, or topic may be the subject of a Wikipedia article if it has been covered in reliable sources. The draft article was created to provide a neutral and verifiable summary of the subject, using information available in published sources Uohabacasu (talk) 16:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uohabacasu: okay, thanks for explaining to me how Wikipedia works. That didn't really answer my question, though. Of all the imaginable topics that "may be the subject of a Wikipedia article", how did you choose this particular one? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The implication that there may be a conflict of interest or ulterior motive in choosing this topic is unfounded. The creation of a Wikipedia article on Hassan Nisar Haripur is solely based on the availability of credible sources and the subject's potential notability. As a contributor, the goal is to provide accurate and reliable information, adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. The selection of this topic is not influenced by personal connections or biases, but rather a genuine interest in sharing verifiable knowledge with the public. Uohabacasu (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uohabacasu: You have already disclosed that you have a connection to Hassan Nisar Haripur. You might not realise that this does give you a potential conflict of interest, so please familiarise yourself with the Conflict of Interest guidelines.
Please do not create new threads on this help board or elsewhere to ask for a new review. Discussions are difgicult to follow if they are duplicated in several places, and the administrators' noticeboard is not for asking about draft reviews. --bonadeacontributionstalk 09:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16:37, 17 June 2024 review of submission by Tedleisenring[edit]
does this article have a chance of being published?
if not ; should I delete it Tedleisenring (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With no references it has zero chance of being acceptable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tedleisenring: I'd say it has no chance of being published, given that (among other things) it has been rejected.
It would have been automatically deleted in a couple of weeks' time, had you not edited it today. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article without first finding sources that meet the criteria in golden rule is like building a house without first surveying the site or checking local building regulations. The house will almost certainly fall down, or you will be required to make such large changes that you might as well demolish in and start again.
Your system made a fault in identifying that the corresponding article is in Croatian i.e. hr.wikipedia while the corresponding article is in Serbian on sr. wikipedia. We are kindly asking you to correct this fault and find the reason why the confusion happened as we would like to avoid potential problems in future searching of the article, DarthDajic (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthDajic: That template has been there since the first edit on the page. Odds are that something you did in the Wizard caused it to misidentify the source language. You can easily modify the template yourself, replacing "hr" with "sr". —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 22:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
June 18
05:56, 18 June 2024 review of submission by Odishajagarana[edit]
What is <ref> used for in Wikipedia? Odishajagarana (talk) 05:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Odishajagarana: it's a wikicode markup element that creates a footnote, see H:FOOT.
For general editing questions like this, please use the Teahouse or Help desk.
And please don't use Wikipedia to promote your YT channel, that's a fast-track route to getting blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
08:23, 18 June 2024 review of submission by WarriorYt43[edit]
Hello. I have worked on this draft for months. I believe it is complete and ready to be submitted. However, the reviewer has rejected it twice, and I feel this is unjust. I would appreciate it if someone could fairly review the draft and help me improve it. Thanks! WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WarriorYt43 The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
I see no errors in process by the reviewer, and I can't disagree with their assessment. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad for the wording mistake. What should I do now? WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to address the issues before re-submitting and note that content like "He comes from a family with a significant military background and brings over 19 years of experience from his military service, where he served in various roles." confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
08:57, 18 June 2024 review of submission by Uohabacasu[edit]
A formal request for review is being made regarding the draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur, a highly accomplished Pakistani entrepreneur, YouTuber, and philanthropist. Despite overwhelming evidence of notability, the article has been inexplicably rejected multiple times by Saqib, without clear justification.
Hassan Nisar Haripur's achievements and coverage in reputable sources unequivocally demonstrate his notability:
- Award-winning entrepreneur
- Featured in top Pakistani publications, including The Dawn and The Tribune
Wikipedia's policy on award-winning individuals explicitly states that they are eligible for a Wikipedia page (WP:NATIONALAWARD) . The provided sources meet the highest standards of credibility, reliability, and relevance.
It is perplexing that Saqib has repeatedly rejected the draft, despite the clear evidence of notability. A thorough review of the article and references is requested to assess whether it meets the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The current situation raises concerns about the consistency and fairness of Wikipedia's review process. Uohabacasu (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uohabacasu: There is no evidence of notability in the draft. None. There is now a source evaluation at Draft talk:Hassan Nisar Haripur to explain this, and I'm afraid you simply have to accept that it's the end of the road for that draft at this time. --bonadeacontributionstalk 13:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10:45, 18 June 2024 review of submission by Nirmalraja[edit]
I would need help to submit the page Nirmalraja (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirmalraja: how do you mean? You've managed to submit it four times already.
Also, you need to be more specific than that. What help do you require?
As general advice, you must address the reasons for the previous declines before resubmitting, as this is otherwise running the risk of outright rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10:59, 18 June 2024 review of submission by 2A02:8109:3B40:3AC8:DC6D:41AF:3A5:8878[edit]
Which bit of "rejected" do you find difficult? This draft provides zero evidence of notability, and fails even the most basic verifiability tests. Therefore the answer to your question is – never. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally all your sources are skyscrapersim.net - specifically its homepage, its user forums, and its wiki. These aren't acceptable sources under any circumstance (all have a connexion to subject and the forum and wiki have no editorial oversight as well). The notes left by the reviewers call out the sources as lacking, and you ignored them. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 17:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14:39, 18 June 2024 review of submission by ElmStreetsLastBrat[edit]
The comment left on my draft is perplexing. Several of the sources I cited were magazines, Ms. Gregory's law practice website, and others. She is an actress, so it makes sense to have an IMDb page listed as a source. Her appearances on "The Last Drive-In" and the music video for the band Restless Heart are on YouTube. Often those are reliable sources because she is on screen in "The Last Drive-In" episode, which was a streaming series and she is a featured actress in the Restless Heart music video. ElmStreetsLastBrat (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElmStreetsLastBrat: IMDb and YouTube are user-generated and therefore not considered reliable, and Amazon is just a retailer. These collectively account for half the citations in your draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ElmStreetsLastBrat: Allow me to welcome your draft to primetime by pointing out why it's getting declined.
"[Gregory] was born in Fort Worth, Texas in 1963." - Source? (If you're about to say "The source is at the end of the paragraph!" that doesn't cut it - the source for this claim must be at the end of the sentence containing the claim.)
"While in high school, she participated in drama and acting." - Source?
"After graduating in 1981, she married and had a daughter." - Source?
"She studied acting at The Film Actor's Studio, the KD Studio, and North Lake Junior College." - The source cited here does not support any of these three claims. You need sources that explicitly name the acting schools she studied at.
"Gregory has also appeared in several music videos, most notably in the music video for the song The Bluest Eyes in Texas by Restless Heart in 1988." - The first source is just an Internet Archive compilation of Femme Fatale issues; if you're citing a specific article in a specific issue you need to use ((cite magazine)) and fill in the last, first, work, date, title, and pages parameters. The second source is YouTube, which we can only cite if (1) the video was produced by an outlet we would ordinarily consider to have editorial control and fact-checking and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel. Music videos are never acceptable sources.
"In 1988 Gregory met Joe Bob Briggs and began working on the wildly popular television series Joe Bob's Drive-In Theater from 1988 to 1995." - Source? This is also promotional.
"From 1991-2000, Gregory reprised her role of "Honey the Mail Girl" on MonsterVision." - The source here is Joe Bob Briggs' own website and can't be considered usable for notability here (connexion to subject). You need to find a better, more independent, source or remove this claim.
"She was also interviewed for the magazine Indianapolis Monthly in December 2000." - The source here is effectively 404-compliant. You need to cite the hardcopy of the magazine in the same fashion as I described for Femme Fatale above. I will note that interviews are generally not usable for notability (connexion to subject).
"She discussed her television work with Bloom Magazine in their August/September 2012 issue." - This reference is incomplete (missing pages and author).
"[...]Gregory was awarded a full scholarship from Southern Methodist University and graduated with a degree in Business Administration in 1997[...]" - The source here is the law firm's website, which is useless for notability (connexion to subject). You need a better source for this, ideally a news article discussing her life.
"[...]and a Master's degree in International Relations and Diplomacy from Schiller International University in London, England." - Source?
"Gregory moved to Bloomington, Indiana in 1999 to attend law school at Indiana University." - Source? (Even if it's mentioned by a source you used earlier, that source must be cited here as well.)
"Gregory is the author of 37 books, including the "Horror Flix Will Never Die" series as well as several journals and coloring books." - We don't cite Amazon (online storefront). Her publisher(s) would be a better source here.
"She is also writing a screenplay that features a strong female leading character." - This is so vacuous as to be meaningless, but it is properly sourced.
Hi. My article was rejected for lack of reliable resources. I believe I have many...can you help me understand what articles are unreliable? Thanks! TAD JASPER (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft was declined, not rejected, which means it may still be improved and resubmitted.
It's hard to tell because your citations are all bare URLs, which means that they contain the optional, least important part (a link, if the reference happens to be online) and omits the important parts (title, author, publisher, date) which facilitate judging their usefulness.
But it looks to me as if many of them are from galleries and exhibitions which have displayed her work, which means that they are not independent: this is as important a property of sources as reliability.
Note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
21:47, 18 June 2024 review of submission by AleksandraKot94[edit]
I am writing to seek assistance regarding an issue I have encountered with the approval process for an article I submitted to the English Wikipedia. The article, Adam Black (polish photographer), was submitted on 18th of June and has not yet been approved.
Despite following all the guidelines and ensuring that the article meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, neutrality, and notability, it appears to be facing some obstacles in the review process. I have carefully cited reliable sources and adhered to the formatting and content guidelines, but I am unsure what specific issues are preventing its approval.
Could you please provide me with detailed feedback on what needs to be improved or corrected in the article? Any guidance or suggestions you can offer would be greatly appreciated, as I am committed to ensuring that the content meets Wikipedia’s standards and can be beneficial to its readers.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Best regards,
Natalia Izydorczyk
AleksandraKot94 (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: User:AleksandraKot94/sandbox --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have cited no sources at all for the main part of the article. This is unacceptable in an article about a living person.
On a quick look, you have cited no independent sources for all the lists of awards: without independent sources, how can a reader tell whether these are of any significance?
Like most people who try the challenging task of creating an article before they have spent any significant time learning what Wikipedia is about, you have produced something that is only superficially like a Wikipedia article. It does not observe the core principals of verifiability, independent sources, or neutral point of view, and it does nothing to establish that the subject meets the criteria of notability, without which an article is not possible.
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) 22:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
23:30, 18 June 2024 review of submission by 0iet0[edit]
I cannot understand why this draft was rejected, Can I appeal the decision? Can another editor look at this draft and offer an opinion. Contrary to what is said about this draft, it is completely objective. All of the information has been collected from legitimate published sources, both hard copy and digital, all sourced by foot notes. Please read it again carefully and tell me specifically which lines or parts are unacceptable 0iet0 (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are trying to upload the content for the Wikipedia article, but we are facing problems such as it is not getting approved. can you please help us to know the process as we can upload the content.
Abbas Sajwani (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandbox has no content so there is nothing to review? Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean rejected, not deleted. It was deleted for the reason indicated "Knowledge Panels" are automatically generated and the existence of one does not confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, so as notability can i add imdb, crunchbase and google play books links? what should i add to prevent it from getting rejected sir? 2409:4060:108:7DC2:3C2D:8311:3C2E:8EDF (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been rejected already, there is nothing to be done to "prevent" that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to inquire about the recent decline of my submission to create a Wikipedia article for Chen Lijun, a prominent Yue opera performer currently well-known in China.
I have submitted basic information for the article, but unfortunately, it was declined. Could you please provide me with the specific reasons for the decline? Additionally, I would appreciate guidance on how I can improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards for acceptance.
Furthermore, regarding references, may I inquire whether it is acceptable to use Chinese sources instead of English ones? As there is limited information available in English about this aspect of Chinese traditional culture, I believe using Chinese sources would provide the most accurate and comprehensive coverage.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and guidance on how to proceed with the creation of Chen Lijun's Wikipedia article.
Best regards,
Vivian Vivian0617 (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivian0617: the draft was declined because it provides no evidence that the subject is notable. A single source is not enough to establish notability, especially when it only provides a passing mention of the subject, and doesn't seem to verify any of the (very limited) information in the draft.
And yes, non-English sources are acceptable, as long as they meet the usual requirements in terms of reliability, independence of the subject, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivian0617: the article has been declined purely because it's so short, it doesn't show why she is notable - if she is discussed in multiple sources, this helps. Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable, however makes it more difficult to review. Mdann52 (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
09:53, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Kamil grundy39712132[edit]
I'm new to making articles and if you could tell me how to improve on it that would be great
Kamil grundy39712132 (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are based on significant coverage in reliable independent published sources, your draft has none and it has been rejected, there is nothing else you can do. Theroadislong (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10:04, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Pushpendra singh gurjar 27[edit]
Why the submission has been declined, please mention reasons, I will fix those in the draft Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pushpendra singh gurjar 27: the decline was in error, and has been undone; the draft is back to pending review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for quick response Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources related to this village are not available over internet, Is there any other type of reference/source that can be helpful for approval? Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pushpendra singh gurjar 27: We accept offline sources, if enough information is provided to look the source up in an archive. (For newspapers and magazines we need the publication name, publication edition (e.g. 1 Jan 1923), article title, article byline, and the page(s) the article can be found on; for books we need title, author, publisher, year of publication, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.) —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques 15:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response @Jéské Couriano, Currently there is no information is available in books or any authorised source. The only authenticity is the village public or some government organised activities like census and elections results. Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10:35, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Woobab[edit]
Thanks for reviewing my draft so quickly. I've removed one arguably unreliable reference from the citations, I'm wondering if you could point out which other ones are unsuitable for this draft. Also, please clarify if the rejection was due to a specific unreliable reference or that there were simply not enough references. Note that I did refer to the first party official site as that reflects the most accurate information about location and times.
Pinging reviewer @Jamiebuba. I think this draft is fine for acceptance now. Coachella Valley Independent is a smaller local publication, but it have been cited by others before. The Lineups section is without sources though (just put one at the top of the section). And on a side note I don't think the last sentence of the first paragraph is necessary. Catalk to me! 12:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate the feedback. I've added more details, such as authors and publication names into the references as well as adding more relevant sources. I wasn't sure what constituted sources for the lineup so I've included published articles from sources such as Consequence of Sound and Stereogum alongside setlist.fm listings (let me know if this counts as 'social media' sources and is incorrect for this usage, I can remove them). I do agree with your statement, I've drastically reduced the lengthiness of that sentence, as that information is more or less redundant with the lineups section. Thanks again! I'll probably go ahead and submit it now. Woobab (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend resubmitting, though more sources would be a plus. 👍 Catalk to me! 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
10:55, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Pushpendra singh gurjar 27[edit]
Most of the sources related to this village are not available over internet, Is there any other type of reference/source that can be helpful for approval? Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don't have to be online books, newspapers magazines etc are fine, just cite where you got the information from. Theroadislong (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the sources please check @Theroadislong Pushpendra singh gurjar 27 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you have NOT updated the sources, "Oldest Village Residents Name: Baba Rajendra Prasad(Retired government school teacher), Baba Chandan Singh" and "verified by villagers" are absolutely NOT reliable published sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12:28, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Rupashegal[edit]
suggest me Rupashegal (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was thoroughly promotional and has been deleted. Please see WP:PROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID(as you have a clear financial interest as the founder) 331dot (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupashegal: this draft was deleted as promotional. I suggest you don't try that again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13:34, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Zermuggleflizbot[edit]
I got this response after the review of my submission
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia.
However, I believe this article is very neural and it only describe some facts about the organization Jerrychuang1 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A friend of mine knows the owner of this place and I couldn't find it online, so I volunteered to write one wiki article for them Jerrychuang1 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Washington University of Science and Technology - WUST (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hello Sir,
I have submitted a new article on behalf of Washington University of Science and Technology (WUST). Unfortunately, the request has been declined. Could you please let me know how to resubmit the article? Thank you for your guidance.
Thank you. Mamun RNN (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mamun RNN: it has been more than declined, it has been rejected, which means the end of the road for this draft. What's more, it has been deemed overtly promotional, and is pending speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - Mohit Joshi is the CEO of Tech Mahindra and an Aviva Board Member. We are not sure why his Wikipedia page is getting rejected. Please can you help set it up? 86.129.185.213 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merely being the CEO of Tech Mahindra confers zero notability? Who is "we", accounts are strictly single person use only. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to "set up a page", you should do that somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia composed of articles. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are the sources in my article sufficient and reliable? Is there anything to modify or change? Grammar is still a work in progress. Faketuxedo (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What many of them are not, is Independent. 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.
This is par for the course for new editors who try the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent much time learning about how Wikipedia works. I always advise spending a few weeks or months editing existing articles and learning about fundamental concepts such as verifiability, neutral point of view and notability before even trying it. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19:46, 19 June 2024 review of submission by Duosdebs01[edit]
Don't know what you want guys. I gave you 5 reliable and well know books and a historic newspaper article. Gwydd (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwydd We want one article with one subject, not three articles in one. Shirley G. Kingsleymay warrant an article. The River Plate Aviation Company may warrant an article. British flying-boats does not, with this content.
You have written a magazine piece, an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. We need flat, dull-but-worthy prose, purely factual, summarising in your own words without close paraphrasing what others have said about the topic from significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
