Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

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

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


January 13

[edit]

00:30, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Turps222

[edit]

Hi Everyone, I am trying to add a new bio page about a current scientist that is doing exciting work (Professor Greg Neely, University of Sydney), but it has been knocked back by editors. Their feedback was that it "didn't show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". I'm a little surprised about this, since his work has been published in prestigious scientific journals and is regularly featured in reputable international media outlets (eg. BBC, CNN, The Guardian, etc). Does anyone have any advice/suggestions on what can be done to improve the draft and satisfy the editors? I'd appreciate your advice. Thanks. Turps222 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Turps222: I looked at the BBC and CNN pieces you mention. They have Neely commenting on something, rather than being about him. The Guardian articles, esp. the first one, are better, as they talk more about him and his work. Notability according to the general WP:GNG guideline, which applies to most subjects, requires multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage, directly of the subject and not of some indirectly related or ancillary matters.
For academics there is an also another possibility for demonstrating notability, namely the special WP:NPROF guideline. Study the eight criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC and see if you can find evidence that at least one of them is objectively and unambiguously met.
If you have an external relationship with this person, that need to be disclosed. A message has been posted on your talk page about managing conflicts of interest. Please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also asked and answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:48, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Createuserss

[edit]

Why My Draft Article was rejected. Createuserss (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Createuserss: this draft was declined (not yet rejected) because the sources do not demonstrate that the subject is notable. The information is also almost entirely unreferenced, although that wasn't the reason for declining it on this occasion.
You also clearly have a conflict of interests which needs to be disclosed. I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10:03, 13 January 2025 review of submission by HanskrithaSinghU

[edit]

Created an article page for a high ranking police official who has made a significant difference in local law enforcement and shown significant articles that he has been mentioned in. But article keeps getting denied due to Notability issues.

How do i resolve this issue? HanskrithaSinghU (talk) 10:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Your draft just summarizes what seems to be to be routine police work and does not detail any particular influence of this person on policing as a field. Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Has this man developed unique police strategies that others write about or other police officers emulate? Has a particular reduction in crime been attributed to this man personally that others took note of and write about? Not every police officer or administrator merits a Wikipedia article. I see that you're a paid editor for him- if your specific duties require you to successfully create a Wikipedia article, I suggest that you return his money. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 13 January 2025 review of submission by EddieOR11

[edit]

Hi, my wiki page submission was recently rejected and I was just wondering why this was rejected and can I appeal this as I desperately would like this page to be posted as it means a lot to myself and the people of Creeslough. This competition shed a glimmer of light in what was a very difficult time for the community due to the gas explosion that occurred in Creeslough. The original darts competition was a day that many people started to go out in the community again and it is fondly remembered by the Creeslough people EddieOR11 (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieOR11: I've already answered this on my talk page, please don't ask the same question in several places. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are based on what independent, reliable, published sources say about a topic, you have none here you are merely advertising an event. Theroadislong (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:14, 13 January 2025 review of submission by Nik9t

[edit]

I am struggling to identify secondary sources in order to validate a notable person entry.

Dr. Kent is considered a legend within the UN for decades of pioneering work done, but I am struggling to find what might be considered acceptable validation of the facts through secondary sources.

For example, my understanding was that elected titles / association of reputed academic bodies alone should suffice, but this appears not to be the case (rejected submission).

The requirements seem dismissive with respect to what I have been able to identify online so far. What am I missing? How might I reasonably validate this entry.

Thank you for any guidance. Nik9t (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have added an unreferenced section with personal details where did you get this from? Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nik9t: Have you read over WP:NACADEMIC? That uses a different, somewhat more bespoke, set of criteria than the general guideline that may be easier for Kent to meet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:15, 13 January 2025 review of submission by AudaciousT

[edit]

How many notable articles does an individual need to qualify for an article. AudaciousT (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the number, but the quality, for example Intagram and Applemusic are not independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

[edit]

00:02, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Phenomenon 10

[edit]

Hi, I posted this to the article talk page, but I am not sure that is the proper place. I would like assistance with the following (thank you):

____

Hello!

I submitted this article and it was rejected on 04 March 2024.

I made all the requested changes, and the article was rejected again on 21 July 2024.

The editor for the second rejection on 21 July 2024 cited the exact same rejection reasons (reliable sources) the editor for the 04 March 2024 rejection used.

Please review the sources section of the article and note they meet, in abundance, the criteria for reliable sourcing. The article subject is the primary subject of most of the included sources in the article, and, the sources are universally acknowledged, highly credible, journalistic entities.

I would also like to suggest, respectfully, that there is a possibility the second article editor may have been influenced by bias against the article subject, as the article subject is strongly affiliated with the State of Israel, and the US and Israeli military.

Thank you for your attention and assistance to this matter. Phenomenon 10 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was not rejected, it was declined.
Not sure what you're talking about by "second article editor" (You were the only submitter), but if you're accusing reviewers of being biased against the article subject you have to stop. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phenomenon 10: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
You might have better luck if you can provide page numbers to the offline cites (page numbers are hard-required for all offline newspaper/news magazine cites) and get rid of every source that is primarily stuff he or his direct associates have written or said. I cannot say if he is notable or not since there are two sources I cannot assess, but getting rid of the worst sources is paramount. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort; your input is very helpful. Phenomenon 10 (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:02, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Guhvkkik

[edit]

I am the person on this article I can show you any proof Guhvkkik (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Vaxlodz
@Guhvkkik: Autobiographies are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Articles here have to be neutral and be based solely on reliable sources. As you can not be neutral when talking about yourself, anything you write could be biased. Also, you are a primary source about yourself, and typically, articles should be based mostly on secondary sources. Wikipedia does not allow original research, including personal accounts of your own life. Everything you write must be backed by a reliable source, and currently, every source in your draft is user generated, which is not reliable. It is not always a good thing to have an article about yourself. cyberdog958Talk 02:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I Add some link why Spotify and Fandom are not approuved?! Guhvkkik (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I need to add for proof ? I don't want my wiki got deleted Guhvkkik (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guhvkkik: As I have said here and the other reviewers stated on your draft, you have to source everything from a reliable source. The sources you had, and then deleted, were not reliable sources. If no such sources exist, then you cannot create the article. cyberdog958Talk 06:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guhvkkik: We don't cite streaming platforms such as Spotify, and Wikia/Fandom is an open wiki just like Wikipedia is. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Guhvkkik. Like many people, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what people wholly unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources (see WP:42 for more detail): nothing less, and very little more.
What the subject or their associates do, or have done, or say, or want to say is almost completely irrelevant except where it has been discussed by such independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:32, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Georgebucklang1

[edit]

How come my article about westmount park school was declined by CyberDog958 thank you Georgebucklang1 (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Westmount Park School
Please, read the reason provided. You submitted a redirect request to a process which reviews articles.
Please submit the request at WP:WIZR.
ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

08:14, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Audiodude

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my draft so quickly! The reviewer (SK2242) left the following message: "Needs more reliable sources that talk about Fedipact itself in significant detail." I guess I'm just not sure about what the threshhold is for "more" and "significant". Or if "itself" in that sentence implies that a reliable source needs to write a dedicated article, perhaps with the word "Fedipact" in the headline? I know my sources are reliable, and I've already got 4 of them. audiodude (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_sourcing_mistakes_(notability)
I guess my suspicion is correct, that it needs a dedicated article. It seems my intuition about "in passing" is different than the definition applied in notability reviews. audiodude (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Audiodude: that's right; we need to see 'significant coverage' directly of the subject, which means that it should be the main topic, or at least one of the main topics, of the sources you're citing, to show that the subject is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia article. Also, because Wikipedia only summarises what others have previously published, for that to be possible there must be substantial content to summarise. Of the four sources cited in this draft, two make only a single, passing mention of Fedipact, and a third provides not much more. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:32, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502

[edit]

Fast X: Part 2 (2026) we have runtime is reportedly 148 minutes (2 hours, 28 minutes) per AMC Theatres. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, from #21:56, 10 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A84:DCED:1:0:F5DD:1A4A. How long are you going to carry on wasting your time and everybody else's on this nonsense? Please read What Wikipedia is not carefully. ColinFine (talk) 12:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Namenamesjjenehjd

[edit]

My article was denied because of favoritism. Not only did I provide the exact resource that was used in another article very similar to mine (and that also provided sufficient information), I have also noticed other articles that have been approved with less information. Denying my article's approval shows clear favoritism towards other subjects and other editors, which is not acceptable in this community. Just because I am not as experienced in article creation as others does not mean that my article should be denied. I'd like to bring attention to the article for Triazeugacanthus, which was approved whilst having similar information and sources as mine. Namenamesjjenehjd (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Namenamesjjenehjd: Odds are that article was never drafted, as one-source stub drafts have never survived the AfC process. (That's because one source, by itself, cannot support an article no matter how good the source or short the article.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. The article I was referring to did have a point in which it only had one source, but that must have been before it was approved. Namenamesjjenehjd (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Namenamesjjenehjd That another article exists does not necessarily mean it was "approved" by anyone. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist and go undetected and unchecked, even for years. This submission process has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and isn't required of every user. (among other reasons) We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us address inappropriate content so that others like yourself don't do what you did, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take action. We need the help, and we're only as good as the people who choose to help. 331dot (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the "edit history" page of the article incorrectly. The issue may have been resolved. I resubmitted the article. Namenamesjjenehjd (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:37, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Deidrel.evans

[edit]

Hello, I recently attempted to create a Wikipedia article for StriveTogether, but it was rejected for "not meeting notability guidelines" and "neutrality". I want to improve the draft to meet Wikipedia's standards and would greatly appreciate any feedback or guidance. I was revising it by ensuring a neutral tone, but I’d welcome advice on how to strengthen it further. I think it got resubmitted before I was finished. Here’s the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:StriveTogether . Thank you for your help! Deidrel.evans (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deidrel.evans: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered futher.
And for the record "it got resubmitted" because you resubmitted it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:47, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Nycrest

[edit]

Hello - please review the updated page with new sources (The Today Show and others) Thanks Nycrest (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycrest: this draft was rejected many months ago, and will therefore not be considered further. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't previously considered, you may appeal the rejection by contacting the rejecting reviewer directly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks, not sure if the reviewer is active anymore, how do i check? Nycrest (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
I'd talk to S0091 about reversing the rejection, but first I would get rid of the Resy, Eater, and The Infatuation sources —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made these changes and fixed the PIX11 link (idk what happen there) - also how do I make sure S0091 is still active? Nycrest (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest: Per the navpopups S0091 last edited 10 Jan. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you Nycrest (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest first, per your discussion with at User talk:Clovermoss/Archive 13#Question from Nycrest (02:09, 21 December 2024) you need to disclose your COI for each draft/article that involves the "nonprofit East Village Collective". The easiest way do this in on your User page (see WP:COIDISCLOSE for the COI Userbox template). I have added a template to the referenced draft which will allow you to resubmit it but do take care the COI declarations first. Transparency is key (not that think you trying to hide anything, but be upfront). I will leave you some additional information on your talk page. In addition, please be aware we are volunteers here so responses may not come quickly. It may take days, if not a couple weeks. Outside of that, I think you have at least done a good job addressing the draft's promotional tone. S0091 (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest you just re-submitted the draft before taking care of the COI declaration so I have reverted you. Again, take care of that first. S0091 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't realize the COI wasn't updated on my page (i didnt hit submit). I submitted my background with my affiliation with the Community Board (who initially approved this businesses license) Nycrest (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nycrest all good now. For the record Nycrest has made an WP:AGF effort to appropriately disclose. With a little help, we got there. S0091 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 196.188.159.97

[edit]

allow 196.188.159.97 (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft has been rejected due to refusal to address criticisms and will not be considered further. You absolutely cannot just slap a list of references on the end and call it good; they need to be cited in-line at the spot(s) of the claim(s) each source supports. Anything less gets declined out of hand. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Mjpmnelissen

[edit]

Request for final edit and publication. Mjpmnelissen (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjpmnelissen: I'm not sure what exactly you're asking, but if you are finished with this draft and would like it to be reviewed, you need to submit it by clicking that blue 'submit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nycrest (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:03, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 74.135.79.38

[edit]

Miami Valley Golf is an association similar to the USGA and should have their own page on this site 74.135.79.38 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations do not "have pages" here. Wikipedia has articles about topics, some of which are organizations. Those organizations do not exclusively control or maintain those articles.
Your draft is written as an advertisement, telling of the offerings of the organization and what it sees as its own history. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about a topic, not what it says about itself. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 14 January 2025 review of submission by 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502

[edit]

FBI (also known as FBI: The Game) is a upcoming video game based on the television show of the same name. FBI is a first-person shooter. (portrayed by Missy Peregrym, & Zeeko Zaki). The game will be released on Windows & PlayStation 5 & Xbox Series S/X & PlayStation 6. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's your question? 331dot (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Lanak20

[edit]

Dear editors, would appreciate your assistance as I work to get an article approved. I believe the article is well-prepared and meets Wikipedia’s guidelines. However, I would appreciate it if someone could take a look to confirm everything is in order.

If there are any minor adjustments or suggestions that could enhance the article further, I’d be happy to address them. xx

Thank you for your time and support! :) Lanak20 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lanak20 I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. You have submitted the draft for review, the reviewer will leave you feedback if they don't accept it. It's redundant to submit the draft for a review then ask for a review outside of the process. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the link, I appreciate it xx Lanak20 (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:27, 14 January 2025 review of submission by DavidGodo

[edit]

I am trying to submit a page or an article for an independent artist named Hypnautic who is half of the independent group Top Flite Empire. it is declining me. DavidGodo (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidGodo: The page was declined and deleted as blatant promotion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White (2025).

[edit]

Snow White we have runtime is reportedly 127 minutes (2 hours, 7 minutes) per AMC Theatres. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for help with the drafting process and isn't for requesting edits to existing articles. Take it to Talk:Snow White (2025 film) or (if that is protected) to WP:Requests for page protection/Edit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:35, 14 January 2025 review of submission by Lanak20

[edit]

Hello

I am writing to express my deep frustration and confusion regarding the recent decline of my draft, After dedicating months to meticulously gather and incorporate reliable, published, and independent sources that adhere strictly to Wikipedia’s guidelines, my submission was dismissed in less than an hour with the rationale that the references do not demonstrate the subject’s notability.

To provide context, here are some of the sources I included:

• https://www.nationaldiversityawards.co.uk/awards-2024/nominations/ario-nahavandi/

• Taurus Magazine (2024-11-19). "Ario Nahavandi". Taurus Magazine. 88: 7 – via www.magcloud.com

• 6x Magazine (2024-11-22). "Ario Nahavandi; The Persian Icon". 6X Magazine. 432: 6–7 – via www.magcloud.com

These sources provide detailed information about Ario Nahavandi’s career and public presence, aligning with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for people.

It is disheartening to observe that numerous articles on Wikipedia have been approved with references that are far less substantial. In contrast, despite my adherence to the guidelines and the inclusion of credible sources, my draft has faced multiple rejections.

I kindly request a thorough review of my draft and the accompanying references. If there are specific issues or additional criteria that I need to address, please provide detailed feedback so I can make the necessary adjustments.

Thank you xx 

Lanak20 (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lanak20: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
What is your connexion to Nahavandi? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Batman Part II (2027)

[edit]

The Batman Part II we have runtime is reportedly 168 minutes (2 hours, 48 minutes) per AMC Theatres. 2001:D08:1A85:415:1:0:1430:5502 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you were told above, this page is not for requesting edits to existing articles and you need to take it either to the talk page or (if that's protected) to WP:RFPP/E. Any further posts by you requesting edits on this page will be summarily reverted off. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

[edit]

00:11, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Wahdoh

[edit]

The article is correctly cited according to wikipedia guidelines. Please tell me if I am mistaken and what more information should I provide to make it acceptable. Thank you. Wahdoh (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the draft for resubmission per SafariScribe's statement "I am reopening this draft for submission if you cite sources.", as it seems you have added inline citations. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:34, 15 January 2025 review of submission by JazzDoc5525

[edit]

This article was declined. I tried to ask the editor who declined it their reasoning and received no response. I could use some guidance here... This article was submitted with what should be the *highest* value sources, feature articles in both Downbeat and JazzTimes magazines. It is very difficult to get this coverage if a musician is not "notable." For young jazz artists, there are no better independent references for a Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, Wiki has consideration for Genre-Specific notability which seems to be disregarded here. The criteria seems subjective and the editor seems uninformed about relevant sources... Thanks. JazzDoc5525 (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JazzDoc5525: We can't use https://www.allaboutjazz.com/musicians/behn-gillece/ (unknown provenance). Replacing that source with a much better one might help. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Infomdzakaria

[edit]

page rejected, but person is really famous and well know person in Bangladesh. Infomdzakaria (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Infomdzakaria: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:00, 15 January 2025 review of submission by LPM UNKLAB

[edit]

I want to create an alumni profile of universitas klabat, because i'm a webmaster of universitas klabat LPM UNKLAB (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LPM UNKLAB: the first thing you need to do is disclose your paid editing. I've posted a message on your talk page with instructions.
As I said when I rejected your draft, none of the alumni listed in it seems to be notable, as we define it, since they don't have existing Wikipedia articles.
And even if all three were notable, there would be no real reason to publish a separate article just for that, when they can be very easily included in the main university article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Also, do not edit (other than to make simple typo etc. corrections) the main university article directly, on account of your conflict of interest. You need instead to make edit requests via its talk page; the easiest way to do that is via the wizard at WP:ERW. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PPS: Please do not create multiple drafts on the same subject, you now have both Draft:Notable Alumni of Universitas Klabat and Draft:Notable Alumni in the system (as well as your sandbox User:LPM UNKLAB/sandbox). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Abdalrahmanmido

[edit]

I was acquiring on why was my article declined

thank you and I hope to hear from you soon Abdalrahmanmido (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdalrahmanmido: I declined it, because there was no evidence of notability. The draft was entirely unreferenced, and only listed the university's own website as a general source. I then deleted it, as purely promotional, and also as a copyright violation. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 15 January 2025 review of submission by 195.66.128.106

[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam, For the Draft:Jamal Lasri submission, now I added 4 new references. It's ok? when the draft will be reviewed again? Thank you. 195.66.128.106 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment whether "it's ok" without reviewing the draft, which we don't do here at the help desk.
What I can tell you is that it won't be reviewed again unless you resubmit it by clicking on that blue 'resubmit' button. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 15 January 2025 review of submission by AdvSchools

[edit]

Hi, can anyone please help me to understand to why the page can not be publushed? As similar pages with less references are published. Thanks. AdvSchools (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AdvSchools: there is no evidence that the subject is notable. See WP:ORG, which tells you what sort of sources we would need to see to establish notability.
What is your relationship with this subject? Your user name very much suggests you represent them somehow. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no relationship to the subject. Im a advocate for schools information on wikipedia in the UK to be availible and create pages fot public interest within the UK. I do this mysel in my spare time I dont have any direct or indirect link to the page or anyother pages i contribute to. AdvSchools (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen may also be inappropriate, and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. You would be unaware of that as a new user. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help us, please identify these other articles you have seen so we can take action. We need the help.
You must change your username immediately so that it represents you, not your organization. Go to Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My username does represent me as a advocate for school information within the UK to be freely accessed within the UK which is within the public interest within the UK. This is why my username is what it is. AdvSchools (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing about an organization called "Advantage Schools" and your username is an abbreviated form of that. Organization names are not permitted as usernames per the username policy- even if you are not affiliated with the organization. You must change your username. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an advocate for school information as part of your job duties? 331dot (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No im not. I do this in my free time as a hobby. AdvSchools (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools: you register your account and straight away create a draft on 'Advantage Schools'. Fully 100% of your edits to date have to do with that subject. Yet you're telling us that the 'Adv' in your user name stands for 'advocate', not Advantage? I'm sorry, but I find that rather difficult to believe. There are c 30,000 schools in the UK, how did you pick this group for your first edits? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its the most local to where I live. AdvSchools (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools: which schools will you be 'advocating for' next? Or is it just this group that you're interested in? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will start localy. Which the next may be Chiltern Learning Trust or council schools in the bedfordshire area or schools in the area without pages. AdvSchools (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a wikipedia School academy trust page is Star Academies which the entire page only has 3 rederences AdvSchools (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that article is marked as problematic at the top, so it is a poor example to use. 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. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for that. So how come the page was accepted to be published if its a problematic artucle? AdvSchools (talk) 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That an article exists does not necessarily mean it was accepted by anyone. There are many ways for inappropriate content to exist. The submission process you are using has not existed the entire time Wikipedia has existed, and isn't required of every user. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools Nitpicking will not win the day. You have been shown WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, so please accept that. If you find material worthy of removal please propose it for a deletion mechanism. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent Star Academies to WP:AFD, thanks for the heads up AdvSchools. Theroadislong (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. However the article im creating im not being paid for, nor im i directly linked or indirectky linked to. Please remove the undisclosed paid tag. AdvSchools (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AdvSchools: Then why is your username basically an abbreviated name for the school? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My old user name was short for Advocate for Schools. UKSchoolUpdates (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i was only asking questions. AdvSchools (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:02, 15 January 2025 review of submission by 126.22.10.209

[edit]

Re this rejection of my proposed article, I accept that Kim Myong-sik is not significant enough to merit a Wikipedia entry and am happy with deletion of my post.

The rejecting editor said:

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

I just note Kim Myong-sik has an entry in the Korean wikipedia at https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EA%B9%80%EB%AA%85%EC%8B%9D_(1941%EB%85%84)

I wonder if this is sufficient a 'published reliable secondary source' to qualify him for an article in the English wikipedia. 126.22.10.209 (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You cannot use Wikipedia (any language version) as a source on Wikipedia. Also, acceptance of an article into one language version in no way guarantees or even assists in being accepted into another version. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP, unfortunately the draft was not edited in six months and has been procedurally deleted, so we are unable to provide any relevant advice other than links that were already present in the declination (not rejection) decision from the reviewing editor. My suggestion would be to request it be restored so you can continue to work on it in the draft space. That can be done using this tool. Then we may be able to provide better advice. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:17, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Moe Moe Zaw

[edit]

WP:CITEKILL I don't understand what you're saying. Moe Moe Zaw (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moe Moe Zaw: there is no need to support a statement with more than one (solid) source; tagging on multiple sources after non-contentious statements is WP:REFBOMBING. For example, the statement "She will represent Myanmar at Miss Universe 2024 in Mexico" is in the lead section supported by four sources, and in the final section by another four sources. This does not need eight sources in total. Using eight sources when one would do makes the reviewers' job unnecessarily difficult, and also suggests that the sources are likely to be flaky (quantity, rather than quality); neither of which does the draft any favours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you so much. Moe Moe Zaw (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This draft is a sock target of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AungKaung932. This latest sock has been blocked as well.-- Ponyobons mots 22:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Jkllduvall

[edit]

I just published my first article and it was instantly declined by another wiki user because it did not properly cite sources. I cited 4: The company website, the trademark office, and independent publication, and a non published book. All the links to the citations are valid and easily found by clicking on the link Jkllduvall (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just declined it for a second time for being blatant advertising, with your next edit you need to disclose your paid editing status. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a company page. Please see WD40 and other chemical companies for reference Jkllduvall (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have no 'company pages'; we have encyclopaedia articles about subjects (some of which are companies or other organisations) that demonstrate encyclopaedic value of some sort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. And as discussed below, your sourcing is bad. On Wikipedia, sources are king. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: Gov't sources are useless for notability (gov't document), the company itself cannot make a case for its own notability (connexion to subject), your book cite is incomplete (missing page numbers and ISBN/OCLC#), and the Industrial Supply Magazine source is useless for notability (routine M&A coverage). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The government source is trademark noting dates. Industrial Supply Magazine is cited to confirm the date of the acquisition. The sources pertain to the notations. Jkllduvall (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall There is absolutely nothing in the draft that shows how the company meets our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: your sources basically confirm that this business exists, and that would be fine if Wikipedia were a business directory. Instead, we are an encyclopaedia, and need to see what makes this business worthy of note; how does it impact the world or at least its sector? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkllduvall: You may have noticed I used the word "notability" a lot in there. As DoubleGrazing says, we want evidence the company has been written about by third parties other than standard business notices and press releases. The only source you cite that could potentially do that is the book cite, and that is missing vital bibliographical information needed to look it up. We're not a business listing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:27, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Absar Khan Pratapgarhi

[edit]

I want talking Absar Khan Pratapgarhi (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question, @Absar Khan Pratapgarhi? qcne (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Absar Khan Pratapgarhi: Your draft is basically content-free. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:15, 15 January 2025 review of submission by 50.100.44.204

[edit]

Mickey Cuts Up is a famous Mickey Mouse cartoon and should have an article, but the sourcing really doesn't talk about it. Can someone show me more reliable sources that actually explain the film? Thanks a lot. 50.100.44.204 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How famous is it if no sources discuss it? The more general help desk is a better plac to ask for help with sources. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But I Can't access the regular help desk because it is semi protected. Now What? 50.100.44.204 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right......its been targeted by an abusive user. I think Talk:Help desk will work. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should go to the Teahouse will that work? 2605:B100:102:98EE:90C7:7CB5:BFCC:1A4A (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's protected too. Wikipedia talk:Teahouse will work. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:46, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Win8x

[edit]

Hey there! I'm not exactly a new user but as this draft was already started, I opted to not create the article in mainspace. I added sources to it from third parties and thought it would meet WP:NWEB. It seems it doesn't, but haven't got a comment besides the generic message. I feel like I should have enough experience to know, help me out here! win8x (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @CSMention269 and @SafariScribe as the two reviewers. Rusalkii (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for that :) win8x (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. I declined it because during the time I was checking none of the sources qualifies WP:GNG at that time. After that, I have not looked further. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that I fully understand haha win8x (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:18, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Al Gattany

[edit]

how to submit this article? Al Gattany (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Gattany, your draft has been rejected because it is a waste of time for other reviewers to continue reviewing it. It clearly doesn't meet the required threshold, WP:NACTOR. Please don't be discouraged, keep learning because it is a process. Maybe you should consider other works like correcting typo and grammatical errors. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

23:18, 15 January 2025 review of submission by Jumarsy

[edit]

I'm submitting with more references. However, in the meantime, another Wikipedia page showed up. With much less information. We would like to replace it. Thank you. Jumarsy (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge with dupe question above Rusalkii (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just resubmitted the article, adding, as requested, more citations. Very recently, another article of the same instrument has been added (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-slit_Solar_Explorer). We want to replace the article with the one just submitted. Jumarsy (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jumarsy, are you replacing the entire article? Are you connected to the subject? Probably yes since you used "we". You should use the article's talk page to request that your changes be added to the article using the WP:COI request tool. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am connected to the subject (I'm the science deputy lead of the instrument). I am not sure who did the other articles. I don't want to merge changes but change the entire article. Jumarsy (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

[edit]

00:18, 16 January 2025 review of submission by 2601:401:C400:D800:9939:D1EB:EB02:2C54

[edit]

I've submitted this article several times but it has been rejected everytime. I need help. 2601:401:C400:D800:9939:D1EB:EB02:2C54 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the reviewer comments in the draft? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 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) 08:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:16, 16 January 2025 review of submission by WistahHoney508

[edit]

Hello, as a Wikipedia newbie re: creating articles, I would greatly appreciate help with the article for screenwriter Caitlin McCarthy. Is it possible to have the draft name changed from Caitlin McCarthy (activist) to Caitlin McCarthy (screenwriter)? Also, are there too many inline URLs in this article? Lastly, is there info that's more LinkedIn than Wikipedia? I've tried to make this Wikipedia ready but could use your expertise. Thank you! WistahHoney508 (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title of a draft is not particularly relevant. If accepted, the reviewer will place it at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Csstaes

[edit]

The reviewer wrote, "There's a lot of information in here that either isn't supported by the sources, is a synthesis of published work that isn't actually what the sources say, or isn't sourced at all." I do not find this information helpful for polishing this article to Wikipedia standards. Below is the reference list for this article. I would appreciate it if the reviewer could indicate what information needs to be supported or is incorrectly supported so I can amend it. Thanks! Reference list: 

"Professor Andrew Jones appointed as Brunel's next Vice-Chancellor and President". Brunel University London. Brunel University Press Office. 1 October 2021. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
Jones, Andrew M. (3 November 2003). Management Consultancy and Banking in an Era of Globalization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 225.
Jones, Andrew M. (31 July 2006). Dictionary of Globalization. Cambridge: Polity. p. 258.
Jones, Andrew M. (26 June 2010). Globalization: Key Thinkers. Cambridge: Polity. p. 275.
"Andrew Jones – Academic Profile". City, University of London. 31 January 2020. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
Jones, Andrew; Ström, Patrik, eds. (2023). Handbook of Research on the Green Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
"Board of Trustees". London Higher. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
"Professor Andrew Jones". Universities UK. Retrieved 22 November 2024.
"Members of the Board of Trustees". Campaign for Science and Engineering. Retrieved 22 November 2024.  Csstaes (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Csstaes The best way to address the reviewer directly is on their user talk page, click the word "talk" next to their username in the decline message. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the list of references above, it does not appear to me that a single one of them meets the triple criteria of being reliable, independent, and containing significant coverage of Jones - in fact, it does n't look to me as if any of them meet even the first two criteria. (see WP:42).
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) 15:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:50, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Toblerone101

[edit]

What exactly should I add because I will gladly add it TobyB (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the subject. It's better if you have the sources in hand before attempting to write, not look for sources after the fact(see WP:BACKWARD). 331dot (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Associatte

[edit]

Hello! Good morning to whoever I may be talking to. Beartown, the book, already has a Wikipedia page and I noticed its sequel doesn't. So I tried to add. But I've never done this before, and I want to make sure everything is alright. I mean, I thought I could add the official synopsis if I gave it the reference, but apparently, I could not. I'm sorry for the trouble with that. But how can I make sure my draft is alright? Associatte (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A book must be shown to meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable book. Usually that is done by summarizing some reviews of the book written by professional reviewers. Your draft article does little more than document the existence of the book. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:46, 16 January 2025 review of submission by 41.81.12.169

[edit]

Why is my article being said that it contains a copyright? 41.81.12.169 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the report linked on the draft page, because your article is mostly written by copying text from Kenyan Vibe [1]. That violates both our policies and copyright law. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:31, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Susko3

[edit]

I would like to write and article about CircusP, and have a draft in my user sandbox. But before I move it to the Draft: namespace and submit for review, I would like to check if my situation constitutes a WP:COI.

I am a volunteer livestream chat moderator (similar to Internet_forum#Moderators, mostly deleting spam) on CircusP's YouTube and Twitch channels. I don't have any relationship with the subject beyond that. Please let me know if that considered a COI that I should disclose on my user page. Thanks, Susko3 (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since you volunteer on their YouTube, you are associated with them. Simply list the COI on your user page. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Oseikhe

[edit]

Please help, why was this article rejected, to my own understanding reliable sources were attributed . And what does secondary sources mean. Oseikhe (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And also I need assistance and guidance in understanding Article creation Oseikhe (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oseikhe: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Only one of your sources is remotely usable, and even that is not third-party. We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Mattova news/scholarly sources that discuss her at length and have been subjected to rigourous fact-checking and editorial oversight. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Oseikhe. This sort of experience is common when new editors plunge straight into the challenging task of creating an article before spending time learning how Wikipedia works. Would you enter a tennis tournament when you only played your first ever game last week?
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:41, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Ktkvtsh

[edit]

User:Macbook01 has removed my AfC decline from the draft as well as others. I'm not sure how to get them all back onto the draft properly. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh am I suppose to keep the top?
sorry. Macbook01 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not sure where to put your decline back on.
It was about stacking citations at the end. Macbook01 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic, is this something you could assist with? Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh done KylieTastic (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited it about a dozen times now to refine each fact I wrote. How's it look to you? Macbook01 (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it is fixed, please only edit the draft below all of the reviews. Thanks! You can always ask for clarification if you get confused. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you!
How's the article look? Macbook01 (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only review drafts one time. Another reviewer will take a look at it for you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:48, 16 January 2025 review of submission by Scottlinehan1999

[edit]

How can i get the page to be accepted. I based the list off the French international rugby players list which was accepted and i have it sourced. Whats the problem. Scottlinehan1999 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The French Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies. What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable on another Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others. Please see the note left by the reviewer, the draft fails WP:NLIST. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 16 January 2025 review of submission by CLWwrites

[edit]

My article was initially declined because I needed to change the writing style and references. I fixed those and submitted it. Another couple of rounds of changes which I did and submitted. When I resubmitted today, I was told I cannot resubmit, so I'm a little confused. CLWwrites (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, have you used AI to write this page? Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness, of course not. CLWwrites (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot seriously think it is suitable for an encyclopaedia? It's possibly the worst paid draft I have ever reviewed. Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your point clear many times CLWwrites (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CLWwrites. As you may have worked out, writing for an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia is different from most other kinds of writing. A very very short guide to writing a successful article:
  1. Find several sources that are reliable, wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Ignore anything on social media, anything written, published, or commissioned by the subject or their associates, or based on their words (such as interviews and press releases). Ignore anything with less than a couple of paragraphs about the subject specifically (as opposed to, for example, his business).
  2. If you have not found a minimum of three such sources, give up: you will be wasting your own and anybody else's time continuing to work on this
  3. If you have, forget every single thing you know about the subject and write a neutral summary of what those sources say.
Congratulations. You now have an acceptable article, which you or others may be able to add to.
My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR - Please spend some time doing basic edits before starting a draft.
You really want to find at least three reliable and independent sources covering the subject in some depth before starting a draft/article. doing this in the wrong order makes everything painful.
ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had 3 reliable and independent sources as they were newspapers. Yes, it's been a painful exercise. CLWwrites (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...a kind and helpful response, I so appreciate that. I realize it's a different style of writing but I thought I had enough independent sources. I'll look at it again. Another reviewer recommended that I needed releases from the photographer for the photos I had added, even though it was likely a staff member or his wife were the photographers, so I just removed the photos. They were from his private photo collection. So you're suggesting that I edit other articles? Thank you again. It's been quite a journey. CLWwrites (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping this reply finds you...it isn't displaying under your comment. Thank you very much for being so helpful. CLWwrites (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @CLWwrites. Thank you for taking the feedback graciously. Yes, I strongly recommend that you edit other articles, and learn that way about how we do things.
Images will not affect whether a draft is accepted or not, so I suggest forgetting about them for the time being. In order to use them eventually, you will need the copyright holders (most likely the photographers) to agree to follow the procedure in WP:donating copyright materials.
I haven't looked at your sources, as you haven't linked to them (you are under no obligation to do so - and of course some sources may be offline anyway - but it makes the reviewer's talk easier if you do), but judging from the titles it doesn't sound as if many of them have in-depth coverage of Winter. They might even be enough to make his business notable even if he isn't. ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your feedback was a fresh response to one of the first reviewers who said it was the worst article they had ever read and I should refund any money I received. That was a little distressing, let me tell you, so your feedback was refreshing - it was helpful. There are 7 newspapers referenced. Yes, they are mostly about Saint Cinnamon coming to other countries but The Toronto Star is a big one about him. The award for the fastest growing QSR Quick Serve Restaurant was him. Most of the newspapers are not online. I reached out to the publishers, even The Toronto Star article is archived and if I use the link it sends you to a library and you need to set up an account to view it, so I wasn't sure if that would be a good practice. His poem was accepted into the Kennedy Accessions Library and through my inquiry to them, they updated it to be online.
So thank you. His business is notable. Over 200 locations globally is quite an accomplishment and he changed how the industry did things.
I will look to other articles and edit a few. CLWwrites (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

[edit]

01:14, 17 January 2025 review of submission by AdrianaStanzione

[edit]

My article was declined due to reliability issues, and I was wondering where specifically this applied throughout the article so I can fix it? AdrianaStanzione (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @AdrianaStanzione. I am not a reviewer, and I haven't looked closely at your draft or your sources. What I will say is that "reliability" is not a property of text, but of sources - whether they are published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking or not; and that when the boilerplate comments that reviewers leave talk about "reliability" of sources, they often refer as much to the independence of sources. 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.
Sources that are going to be used to establish notability need to meet all three of the criteria in WP:42. Interviews, and pieces based on press releases, don't do this. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:20, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Jackson Teiratop

[edit]

Why did my article get rejected???? 

Jackson Teiratop (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources to verify the claims made. Ktkvtsh (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Jackson Teiratop. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable, independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. If you don't cite any sources, then you have no article. ColinFine (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:24, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Afsal8943

[edit]

please advice us to solve this Afsal8943 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

please advice us Afsal8943 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an investor brochure, and you are obligated to DISCLOSE YOUR EMPLOYMENT per our Terms of Use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 17 January 2025 review of submission by 151.95.147.68

[edit]

Dear Moderators,

I am writing to seek guidance regarding the repeated rejection of the English version of the Wikipedia page for Finestre sull'Arte. Despite my efforts to address the feedback provided by integrating additional sources, the page continues to be declined with the explanation:

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

I wish to highlight that the same page, based on identical content and sources, has been approved in other languages, as demonstrated by the following links:

Italian: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%27Arte German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%E2%80%99Arte Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%27Arte French: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finestre_sull%27Arte Given this context, I would appreciate your advice on how to make the English version compliant with the requirements for reliable sources. Are there specific types of references or additional details that I should prioritize?

Thank you in advance for your assistance. I look forward to your guidance. Best regards, 

151.95.147.68 (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a lot of unreferenced information in this draft, and much of the content is supported only by the publication's own website.
Whether an article on this subject exists in other language versions of Wikipedia is immaterial, as each version is a separate project with its own policies and requirements. To be accepted into the English-language Wikipedia, an article must meet our referencing and notability etc. standards (which, to be fair, are higher than those of other versions that I'm aware of). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The first point is that each language version of Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own rules and procedures: what is acceptable in one may not be in others - and the English Wikipedia is said to have one of the strictest regimes for accepting new articles.
Secondly, as far as English Wikipedia is concerned, 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) 15:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it incredibly hard to believe this-- "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.". Who goes through all the data and randomly decides what people they'd like to do an article about. For free no less. We all know that stars have publicists who likely pay to ensure their artists are thoroughly included here. Also, side note: the reviewers have all the charm as an over worked DMV employee. Almonday (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may find it hard to believe, but we don't - because we're the ones doing all that work for free. Everyone you've talked to is a volunteer editor. We all write articles about subjects we have no connection with. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Infomdzakaria

[edit]

as per your instruction i have completed all the references relating to the artile, pls allow me to submit again 

Infomdzakaria (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and Facebook are NOT reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15:53, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Macbook01

[edit]

Let me comb through more articles and resubmit. don't block the submission. people were not allowing it and giving no comment on it... Macbook01 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With 6 declines and a final rejection it's probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Theroadislong (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 17 January 2025 review of submission by AngelaBishopFoodie

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing my article. My question is regarding the qualifications for notoriety as 2 articles have been written regarding the topic. AngelaBishopFoodie (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's "notability", not "notoriety"(which can have a more negative connotation). Your draft is completely unsourced. If you need help writing references to sources, see Referencing for beginners. You seem to be writing about yourself, while not forbidden, it is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarification. I realized the misuse of the word choice after submission. As a beginner, this feedback is appreciated. AngelaBishopFoodie (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @AngelaBishopFoodie
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.
Having said that, I would add that writing about yourself is very strongly discouraged, because very few people are capable of writing about themselves sufficiently dispassionately for Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about the subject, nothing less and very little more. What the subject or their associates say or want to say about themselves is almost irrelevant. ColinFine (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Sammyueru

[edit]

Hello, this draft is declined with the reason of notability and unreliable resources. I have several questions regarding the decision:

1) I checked WP:SINGER and WP:BANDMEMBER while writing this draft, and according to those articles, I believe Jongho fulfills the following criteria:

- "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." --> His solo OST "A Day" charted in Circle and Bugs music chart, and another solo OST "Gravity" charted in Bugs music chart, which are music charts in Korea.

- "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability" --> As listed in the draft, Jongho various solo activities separate from his group Ateez, as an OST singer, acting, and television shows.

Can anyone please help me understand how these do not fulfill the notability criteria?

2) I used a lot of Korean news article with registered journalists as the cited references. The articles I used also talked about his solo activities, where his name is on the title itself, so it is not just a passing mentions of his name in those articles. Can anyone please point out which references are not suitable for these articles?

Thank you for your help! Sammyueru (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammyueru: I would look at WP:CHARTS in re the music charts, as we don't accept every national chart. For South Korea specifically, we accept MIAK, Circle, or Billboard K-Pop Hot 100. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll remove the Bugs chart and only keep the Cirlce chart then Sammyueru (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:15, 17 January 2025 review of submission by CamalPirhbaiSLB

[edit]

Hello everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to make a biographical entry on Camal Pirbhai, a notable artist in Canada. The article was declined due to a lack of significant coverage in my sources. I cited books, articles and other media. Is there anything I can do to improve my sourcing so the page doesn't get declined again? I don't quite understand what is meant by "lack of significant coverage", as I cited books, articles, and other media. Any help is appreciated. CamalPirhbaiSLB (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Camal Pirbhai? If so, please note that writing autobiography is very strongly discouraged in wikipedia. If not, please explain why you have used his name for your account, and what your relationship is with him. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

18:49, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Praveenpmanappattu

[edit]

The article is genuine and all references are alive. Please help to publish Praveenpmanappattu (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Praveenpmanappattu: We do not accept content written via chatbot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Atomobiz

[edit]

Hi, Italian wiki has a page for Archbishop Lauro Tisi: I've translated part of it (Draft:Lauro_Tisi) but it got rejected. What'd be the legitimate way to translate it? Kind regards, Atomobiz Atomobiz (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Atomobiz. I have replaced the URL by a Wikilink to the draft - that is much easier to read.
Your draft has been declined, not rejected: declined means that you may improve it and submit it again.
Please start by reading WP:translation.
Note that it:Lauro Tisi has only one source, and that is an official announcement.
In English Wikipedia, an article is a summary of what reliable independent sources have published about a subject - if no such sources are cited, there can be no article. ColinFine (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Marlaytoday

[edit]

I have thoroughly revised this draft to align with Wikipedia's guidelines, ensuring: - Neutral point of view throughout the article - Comprehensive citations from reliable, independent sources - Proper encyclopedic tone and formatting - Removal of any promotional language - Clear demonstration of subject notability through significant third-party coverage Marlaytoday (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you haven't, @Marlaytoday.
The draft currently begins "CB was a trailblazing figure who revolutionized". Two hugely promotional words in the first sentence.
Evaluative words like that are never appropriate in a Wikipedia article, unless they are being directly quoted (with attribution) from a reliable published source wholly unconnected with the subject. Please see WP:PEACOCK. ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 17 January 2025 review of submission by Editor x45

[edit]

I am seeking assistance with improving and publishing an article draft about Julian Gualtieri, a former professional basketball player and current financial advisor. The draft has undergone several revisions, but it was previously rejected for not meeting Wikipedia’s notability and citation standards.

The draft highlights his notable achievements in basketball, such as his participation in the FIBA Europe All-Star Game (2011, 2013) and his gold medal with San Marino at the European Championship for Small Countries U18 in 2013, along with his career transition into finance as Vice President at Morgan Stanley.

I have included reliable references, such as: 1. RealGM Profile for career statistics. 2. Morgan Stanley Official Profile. 3. FINRA BrokerCheck. 4. SEC Adviser Info.

Despite these efforts, I am struggling to align the article with Wikipedia’s guidelines on notability and verifiability.

Could someone kindly review the draft and provide guidance on: • Whether the subject meets the notability criteria for athletes or professionals. • Any suggestions for improving the draft’s structure or sourcing.

I want to ensure the article meets all necessary standards before resubmitting it for review. Your advice or support would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and expertise!

Best regards, editor x45 Editor x45 (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Editor x45. None of those four sources you mention is of any relevance.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable sources wholly unconnected with the subject have published about the subject: nothing less, and very little more.
Sources such as those are either not independent, or contain very little encyclopaedic information about the subject (or both). An article based on what they say will have hardly any content. MOst of the content in your draft is unsourced.
You need to find places where people journalists, researchers, academics, have written in some depth about Gualtieri. If you cannot find several such, then he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 17 January 2025 review of submission by ПолинаБаляева

[edit]

Почему статья отклонена и как сделать так, чтобы она была принята? ПолинаБаляева (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Следующее было переведено с английского с помощью Google translate, и я не могу ручаться за его точность.) Это англоязычная Википедия, и все вклады должны быть на английском языке. Вы можете захотеть внести вклад в русскоязычную Википедию. JBW (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

[edit]

01:51, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Smilingrubberduckie

[edit]

Hello! I was hoping for feedback about how to improve an article I recently wrote (I'm new to creating Wikipedia pages!). I was looking to make a page for TEDxIndianaUniversity and was referencing some other TEDx event Wikipedia pages out there to understand what should be included (e.g. TEDxSanta Cruz, TEDxTauranga, etc.). From those, I assumed the path to follow was provide information about the organisational history, add references to speakers who were at the events, and cite them with a mix of TED entries and local newspaper reporting. The article received a decline, noting that it needed "sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, strictly independent." I guess what I'm wondering is where I should improve on the article draft? I attempted to cite each event with local newspaper articles (IDS News) wherever possible, so I'm not sure if it's related to this or perhaps something else I'm not seeing. Any advice would be greatly appreciated... thank you for all the help! Smilingrubberduckie (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have documented occurrences of this event, and told about what it is, but you have not summarized what independent reliable sources say is notable about this event, as Wikipedia defines a notable event. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about something- we want to know what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about the topic. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

02:19, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 90.236.79.171

[edit]

Inquiry about a draft. The draft has a sufficient amount of citations from reliable sources, so why is it declined?

yet, this one has zero and is confirmed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD_Gemrot 

90.236.79.171 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jiří Gemrot, unfortunately, predates the drafting process entirely (first edit 2010/04/05). That said, I will be looking for sources for it and, if I find none, sending it to debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:20, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 96.61.3.224

[edit]

Can I make an edit please 96.61.3.224 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a blocked user, IP now blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 223.223.154.13

[edit]

I would want to highlight the life of this great person. How can I do so? 223.223.154.13 (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone. A Wikipedia article about a person must, with a neutral point of view, summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Your draft is completely unsourced, and not written neutrally. If you have independent reliable sources that give significant coverage of this person, you may rewrite the draft and ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider.
If you just want to tell the world about this person, you should do that on social media or a personal website. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I feel that the reviewer's immediate rejection to be a little harsh, you have copied the text from external sources and are in breach of copyright. I have flagged it for deletion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

13:42, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Blagi66

[edit]

Is it forbidden to use llm to write parts of the text? Blagi66 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Blagi66: AFAIK it's not strictly speaking forbidden to use LLM to draft an article, but it is unadvisable. LLMs can't distinguish between acceptable sources and bad ones, at least not reliably, and are known to hallucinate when they can't find a source or can't reference a statement. They may also introduce copyright violations. And their writing style is not ideal for an encyclopaedia. If you're interested, you can read more on this eg. at WP:Artificial intelligence and WP:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I meant to add that on talk pages, the use of LLMs is frowned upon, or worse. Many users find it inappropriate, not to mention creepy, to be 'talking' to an algorithm when they'd rather talk to a human. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the issue that the LLM can make up arguments out of whole cloth that are divorced from both reality and Wikipedia policy. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14:51, 18 January 2025 review of submission by XRAYNEOFFICIAL

[edit]

please ive done all you have asked I have been waiting for 3 months now and every person I have contact is just repeating the same thing and is not straight to the point I have written about his albums, singles, his career before his albums and ive included links aswell. I dont know how your expecting much as it literally says from 2023 to 2025 so how all of you are expect a full blown documenty I dont know. ive got other page for different clients to sort out the same way you have to review it and all im asking is if you could think about it I never said I wanted it imminently all I said was if I remove Spotify and YouTube will it help. XRAYNEOFFICIAL (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@XRAYNEOFFICIAL At risk of repeating myself, all you have to do, all, is to demonstrate that Xraybe passes WP:NMUSICIAN.
Before you do that, your user talk page has a formal question which you must answer before making any other edit of any description, please. That was doubtless triggered by "ive got other page for different clients to sort out the same way" and for which we recommend total transparency 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OP blocked for username(as they clearly are not the named person) and UPE. 331dot (talk)

17:05, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Isaacaschulze

[edit]

Why was the article declined? Isaacaschulze (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacschulze: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Isaacaschulze. A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject: nothing less, and very little more. If you don't cite any reliable sources, there is literally nothing that you can validly put into an article.
If there are not enough valid sources discussing the subject, then the subject does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and any attempt to write an article will be effort wasted.
New editors who plunge straight into the challenging task of creating an article usually have a frustrating experience: would you enter a tournament the same day as you picked up a tennis racket for the first time ever?
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) 18:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 18 January 2025 review of submission by 79lives

[edit]

Uh, for some reason this article wasn't accepted due to the fact that I clearly listed it as a disambiguation page. I don't know why it has been declined unfortunately. 79lives (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that was a goodfaith mistake which was reverted, I have now accepted the page. Theroadislong (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20:15, 18 January 2025 review of submission by Monster536

[edit]

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for taking the time to review the article on Dr. You Chen. I appreciate the concerns regarding notability and would like to clarify why Dr. Chen meets Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (GNG), as well as specific criteria for academics under WP:PROF.

1. Tenured Faculty at a Reputable Institution Dr. Chen is an Associate Professor with tenure at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, a top-ranked academic institution in the United States. Tenure at a major research university often indicates a high level of peer recognition and academic contribution, which aligns with WP:PROF guidelines.

2. Significant Award – PECASE Dr. Chen is a recipient of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). This is one of the most prestigious awards for early-career researchers in the United States, endorsed by the White House. Recipients are chosen for their innovative research and leadership in their fields, and national-level recognition such as the PECASE is frequently considered significant evidence of notability.

3. Major Peer-Reviewed Grants and Research Impact i) Dr. Chen has served as Principal Investigator on multiple NIH-funded R01 grants, including research on care coordination and machine learning in pharmacogenetics. ii) His work in biomedical informatics, machine learning, and clinical informatics has been cited in a substantial number of peer-reviewed publications, indicating sustained impact within the scientific community.

4. Extensive Publication Record Dr. Chen has published over 100 scholarly articles, serving as first or senior author on more than 75% of them. Many of these articles appear in leading journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, and JAMA Network Open. They have been independently cited by numerous researchers, demonstrating influence and recognition within the domain.

5. Fellow of the American Medical Informatics Association (FAMIA) This fellowship recognizes individuals who make significant professional contributions to the field of informatics. Dr. Chen’s selection as FAMIA further demonstrates his standing among peers.

Given these points, we respectfully request reconsideration of Dr. Chen’s article. His career milestones—tenure at a top-tier research institution, a prestigious national award (PECASE), multiple NIH R01 grants, and recognized fellowships—underscore that Dr. Chen meets both the WP:PROF criteria and general notability requirements. We have also provided reliable, third-party sources where possible, and we welcome further guidance on any additional references or clarifications needed.

Thank you again for your time and for the opportunity to improve the entry. We look forward to collaborating with the Wikipedia community to ensure the article meets all required standards of verifiability and neutrality.

Sincerely, Monster536 Monster536 (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"?
The first step in appealing a rejection is to appeal to the rejecting reviewer directly.
Awards do not contribute to notability unless the award itself merits an article. (Like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). Being tenured is not listed at WP:NPROF. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the quote from White House Press release "the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government on outstanding scientists and engineers early in their careers." https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2025/01/14/president-biden-honors-nearly-400-federally-funded-early-career-scientists/ Monster536 (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Monster536 As I said, what matters is if there is an article about the award. If it's that prestigious, there should be plenty of sources about it to summarize in an article. Awards in and of themselves do not confer notability on a topic, as anyone can create any award. That's the reason there needs to be an article about an award cited as the reason for a person's notability. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster536: We're not going to engage with arguments made by a chatbot. If you're serious about this draft, get rid of the LLM and write in your own words. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You Chen (draft) was written by Monster536, without using LLMs. The arguments were drafted by Monster536 and polished by LLMs. If Wiki is not allowed for a polish from LLMs, then Monster536 will avoid it next time. Sorry about it. Monster536 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We want to communicate with you, not a bot. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, who is "we"? Are you associated with the professor? 331dot (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


January 19

[edit]

00:00, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Jocptn

[edit]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WIKI PROJECT YOU CAN GOOGLE IT TO VERIFY Jocptn (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jocptn: We have stricter standards than relying on a search engine that fucks up a basic question about Islam. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't yell, please. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

01:18, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Jakeh81

[edit]

I am trying to figure out what about my current article is not enough to get this page published. I have made many films that have much less notability than the singular movie I am trying to have a page created for (and this is the first page I've ever tried to create). I have cited a multitude of sources, and am putting zero biased information for the page up other than the facts about its release and general info which has been highly publicized and published from a number of reputable public sources. Thanks. Jakeh81 (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. My latest submission met the criteria and the page was created. Thank you! Jakeh81 (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

03:53, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Almonday

[edit]

First thank you for the explanation for the article's rejection. I only partially used a language model as I used it to make sure the language I was writing fit into the criteria for submission. I might be premature in starting a page here as I'm likely not famous enough or have as much public notoriety as needed. I don't go out and seek publicity so being famous wasn't the goal. BUT the things I've been involved with are well-known. Curb Records, Roger Daltrey, the film Voyage of the Rock Aliens with Ruth Gordon. Jennifer Nettles and Christian Bush, Richard Marx aren't random people. I apologize for attempting to write it myself. I worked hard on it. I'll likely just delete it. The help desk btw was pretty rude. And I don't know if Theroadislong works for you but he's a jerk and can't spell encyclopedia. Thanks so much. Marc Jackson aka Al Monday. (A character on "It Takes a Thief" from the 70s and my nickname since I was 9.) Almonday (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:encyclopaedia may be of interest. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almonday, your draft is overtly promotional and violates all three of Wikipedia's core content policies, which are Verifiability and No original research and the Neutral point of view. Plus, the writing is stilted and bizarre. Your references are spectacularly incompetent. Bare URLs leading to dead links are of zero value. Your draft bears no resemblance to an actual, properly written and referenced encyclopedia article. Note that I used the American English spelling since I live in California. Note that the spelling you mocked was a legitimate British English spelling and that the editor you unwisely ridiculed, Theroadislong, discloses that they live in the United Kingdom, and I will inform you that this editor you insulted has made monumental contributions to this encyclopedia/encyclopaedia vastly greater than you can imagine. You, on the other hand, have submitted third rate robot written self-promotional drivel, and you want actual productive encyclopaedia editors to take you seriously. Hmmmm. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Almonday: While I do not agree with Cullen's choice of words (they are a mite aggressive), the general thrust of what he says is the correct tenour. Your sources are either website homepages which have naught worth citing, a Bandcamp which has a connexion to him, and two random Youtube videos which we can't cite regardless of the philosophical manoeuvring you make to argue for them due to them being music videos. (The URLs for the Youtube videos are also rubbish and malformed.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almonday I had to look up the insult [2] ... "“jerk,” an American colloquialism, back to 1935, reports: “Originally: an inept or pathetic person; a fool. Now: an objectionable or obnoxious person." Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks it can lead to a block. Theroadislong (talk)
@Almonday I have stepped on Warren Mitchell's foot at a party, and literally tripped over Mike McGear on stage. Does this mean I should have an article?
Please do not abuse people here; it does not help your quest for an article.
What will help is referencing which verifies any notability you may have. The rule is simple. No referencing = no article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11:53, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Fateh451

[edit]

its our team. our every team member wants that we have a profile in wikipedia. Please give us permission to create our team profile. Fateh451 (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have profiles here, we have articles written by independent editors wholly unconnected with the subject, that summarize independent sources. If you want to create a profile, use social media. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12:49, 19 January 2025 review of submission by Edward Myer

[edit]
Hello, and thank you for you time. I believe the article I have submitted meets wikipedias guideline under General Notability, And Notability under Wikipedia guidelines for (Musicians & Enables). It has been properly sourced with numerous independent references independent of the subject. I may have unintentionally ruffled a few feathers, On December 28th I  was contacted by the user DoubleGrazing on my talk page about a possible conflict of Interest. After disputing the claim I asked him about what I felt was a snide comment towards me on the Admins LIZ's talk page. He said he did not like my Shirty response. Another user Buster D  who seems to be following my every move entered the conversation and told me to lash out at my peril. "Lash out at your peril. BusterD (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2024" , Since then I believe I have been targeted by a circle of editors.

Instead of moving my draft to wikipedia's main space I sent if for review looking for help on its possible improvement. It was immediately declined by, the User Theroadislong (Who appears not be versed in what is considered sources of notability in the genre of Hip Hop Music). I started a topic on Theroadislong's talk page entitled "Who Sent Yah" in reference to my draft articles decline. The comment made during the conversation by Theroadislong' to DoubleGrazing showed they were clearly in cahoots on the articles decline, with Theroadislong to DoubleGrazing" Heh! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]and now they are blocked as a sock of User:Edward Myer. Theroadislong (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)"

I also received this message on my talk page from Buster D "Who told me to initially lash out at my Peril" I suspect that someone is about to remove your talk page privileges for your failure to act like a normal editor and unwillingness to accept your own responsibilities here. Unfortunately, your bad behavior will also likely translate into never seeing Draft:Bruse Wane published again. This is entirely on you, Edward Myer. Your bad behavior. Not theirs. BusterD (talk) 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] "They are the ones exhibiting bad behavior because I took exception to a snide remark. Buster D has tried also tried to change the narrative with this statement when I felt he was stalking me"Edward Myer, there's quite a difference between stalking somebody and merely noticing one editor is acting badly (as admins User:Bishonen, User:331dot), User:UtherSRG, User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:C.Fred, User:DoubleGrazing,"

My Draft was once again declined on January 19th and I believe no matter how thoroughly sourced it is with citations of notability by the subject. It will never be approved as there is a personal vendetta being enacted against. me. My Draft is being held hostage. Once again as state by Buster D as he tries to change the narrative on my talk page "Unfortunately, your bad behavior will also likely translate into never seeing Draft:Bruse Wane published again. This is entirely on you, Edward Myer.

My Draftis spitefully being held hostage and being declined. I would like me decline reveresed,as they are being done with Malice intent.


I also received this message from someone believing I'm the article's subject on January 16th 2025. From 

Ritik| Wikipedia Support r.singh@idigitalakki.co.in

Dear Bruse,

I noticed that your recent Wikipedia Bruse Wane submission was rejected. At IDigitalAKKI Media, we specialize in getting pages approved on Wikipedia, even after prior rejections.

Here’s how we can help: 

   •    Revise and rework your content to meet Wikipedia’s strict guidelines.
   •    Ensure proper citations from credible sources.
   •    Provide a 100% guarantee of successful placement on Wikipedia.

If you’re ready to establish your presence on Wikipedia, let’s get started. Reply to this email, and we’ll guide you through the next steps.

Looking forward to assisting you.

Best regards, Ritik Singh IDigitalAKKI Media Edward Myer (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The message is from a scammer, do not give anyone money. See WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one can provide a "100%" guarantee of anything. 331dot (talk) 12:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Edward Myer: I have said this already, but apparently I need to say it again: do not go around accusing others of inappropriate behaviour without solid evidence (and even then, doing so behind their back is poor form, to say the least), let alone making personal attacks and innuendos. You were lucky to get away with a temporary block, and it's disappointing to see that you immediately return to the same sort of behaviour which contributed to you being blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16:26, 19 January 2025 review of submission by 70.52.185.101

[edit]

Hi there,

I am a new user to wiki, but I’ve been exploring all resources on how to create an article. My draft for the above article was declined and I would like to receive a bit more specific feedback on what it was declined and what changes I can make to have it approved. Thanks so much. 70.52.185.101 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown how he meets the definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1270455747"