Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		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


May 21[edit]

00:23, 21 May 2024 review of submission by 2A00:23C8:582:8B01:7985:FB88:5B96:2097[edit]

Why is Rafe Heydel-Mankoo not afforded a Wikipedia page, when much less celebrated people are ? Is it because of his right wing stance ? By the way , I do make a small annual contribution to Wikipedia . 2A00:23C8:582:8B01:7985:FB88:5B96:2097 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The reason he doesn't have an article yet is because he doesn't meet notability guidelines for people. In short, it needs multiple reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in depth. Currently there isn't; we cannot cite "Find and update company information" as a source. If by 'small contribution' you mean donations, thank you, but we're all volunteers here, and we review articles based on their content. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Itzceltic1999[edit]

My page was declined for the following reason :

"In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject"

I have added as much as reference needed, I dont understand exactly what the above means and what is missing, Can you kindly help me in simple words, Thank You! Itzceltic1999 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzceltic1999 in simple words, none of the current sources are usable. We cannot cite YouTube videos as sources, especially those uploaded by the club itself. We also cannot cite Instagram for similar reasons. We need reliable independent sources. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:33, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Villkomoses[edit]

Hello! fellow editors, like to get updates since I have already tried to satisfy the requirements of the Draft to be considered as an article, though mostly is Porting over the Already approved Content from Chinese Wikipedia (Added citation, wiki links, more refining after MTL of the Original article...)to note this Comic has already been made to an animation which is mentioned in the article also In case if this would be better as a Stub please advise as well ,though from the original article it is already considered not one. Pls. advise, Thanks! Villkomoses (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Villkomoses: please be patient, we have 2,600+ drafts awaiting review, and this one was submitted less than ten days ago.
Whether an article on this subject was accepted into the Chinese-language Wikipedia has no bearing on the matter, as each language version is an entirely separate project with their own policies and requirements.
Neither does whether you choose to tag this as a stub (for which it is clearly far too long anyway), as stubs have exactly the same notability and verifiability requirements as more extensive articles. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, awaiting further updates on this then, Thanks for the prompt Reply! Stay Healthy! Villkomoses (talk) 07:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 21 May 2024 review of submission by StapesIT[edit]

Hello! I'd like to ask you how I can improve on the sources for this article: Draft:Tinify (TinyPNG) I'm writing it on behalf of the company, but I still think it's useful information. However, I can't get it published because the sources are never quite right, so any feedback would be great! StapesIT (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StapesIT We don't need the whole url when linking to another Wikipedia article or page; the title just needs to be placed in double brackets([[Joe Biden]] renders as Joe Biden).
Wikipedia is not a mere host of information deemed useful by those providing it, nor is it a place for companies to tell about themselves, their products/offerings, and what they do. You did a nice job doing that, but it's not what we are looking for. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in this case probably a notable product. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond just telling about a topic and what it does, and goes into detail about what makes the topic important/significant/influential as the sources see it, not as the topic itself sees it. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! But I already included reliable sources from, e.g. Forbes, talking about Tinify. Why isn't that sufficient? StapesIT (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StapesIT: see WP:FORBESCON. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StapesIT, these sentences once the service became popular among web developers designers for its simple and effective image compression capabilities. The brand's mascot is a panda named George, which reflects the founders' secret obsession with the animal are just a few examples of the vast swathes of highly promotional and unreferenced content that litter your draft. You have declared that you are a paid editor which means that experienced volunteer editors expect that your work on the encyclopedia will be highly professional and fully competent. But no. Here you are, asking competent unpaid volunteer editors to help you earn a living. Do you help any of us to earn a living? Do you have any idea how incongruous and bizarre that is? Why can't you carry out your paid job competently on your own? Cullen328 (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice! StapesIT (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested for Draft:Spence_Monroe[edit]

Hia folks,

On behalf of @Memevietnam98 who would like a second opinion on my review of this draft Draft:Spence_Monroe.

Context at their Talk Page: User_talk:Memevietnam98#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Spence_Monroe_(May_20)_2.

Would any reviewers be willing to do a check and confirm my feeling that the sources do not show notability, and that there is no inherited notability being a father of a U.S. President?

Cheers! Qcne (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a leading question, @Qcne, me old fruit. ;) But yes, FWIW, I concur that the sources fall far short of establishing notability, and having notable offspring confers none, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Jezreellouie3056[edit]

Wikipedia shouldn't be run by people who don't know anything that's happening on the other side of the world. Rather they should develop learning what's going on. No assistance sought. Jezreellouie3056 (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Kennedykwangari[edit]

Having complied to all the guidelines and instructions, why do I keep receiving the same message, and having our profile page rejected

Kindly assist without bias and sentiments Thank you Kennedykwangari (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kennedykwangari firstly, we don't have 'profile pages' here. All articles are about notable subjects, and are not for promotion. As for the draft itself, it's extremely promotional, with wording like Through Deeplearning.AI, Kennedy has excelled in promoting partnerships..., and it is obviously about yourself. See WP:AUTO. The draft has been tagged for speedy deletion under G11. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kennedykwangari: please read the messages posted on your talk page. TL;DNR = Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about yourself. Continuing down that road will likely get you blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:29, 21 May 2024 review of submission by StellaMadeleine[edit]

Hello, I recently submitted the Artikel on Stefani Engelstein. Unfortunately, it was rejected because it was "not adequately supported by reliable sources." I do not quite understand because everything written in the article can be traced back to her (various) institutional websites or the websites of her publisher(s). Could you please explain? Do you need more sources or a different kind of sources (e.g. more newspaper articles, more reviews etc.)? Thanks and advance 

StellaMadeleine (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @StellaMadeleine. The problem is the sources are not independent of Stefani. Unless you can prove she meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, we'd need significant coverage of her in multiple reliable independent sources, that are secondary to Stefani. Not from her Institutional or Publisher website.
The WP:NACADEMIC criteria is a bit of an odd one, so let me know if you think she specifically passes one of those instead. Qcne (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:38, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Eruditewookie[edit]

I have addressed all the feedback from the reviewer and submitted a revised version of the page. However it still hasn't been accepted (despite all the feedback being addressed and actioned). Is it possible for another reviewer to look at the page - perhaps somebody with more time? Eruditewookie (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eruditewookie. Draft:Luke_Buckmaster was submitted for review a few weeks ago, but there is a backlog of over 2,600 drafts waiting for review.
However, I have looked at the draft and your sources are nearly all WP:PRIMARY still. I would not accept in it's present state. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources. The only one that is secondary is Home Truths: A Memoir and the Guardian: I can't see Luke being mentioned in the book and he is only briefly mentioned in the Guardian article.
You therefore haven't yet proven notability under WP:NPERSON, sorry. Qcne (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that's not accurate.
Home Truths: A Memoir is one secondary source. Another key secondary source is the referenced newspaper article that is entirely devoted to a discussion of Buckmaster's work (a review of his book). A third secondary reference is a page written about him by a comedian (Tom Ballard). And a fourth secondary reference is the Guardian piece you refer to by Germaine Greer - one of the most prominent feminist authors in history.
I don't understand how it's possible that you're saying there's one secondary source when I'm counting four? (which by the way is far more than thousands of other Wikipedia pages about writers and creative people) Eruditewookie (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four? Where's that number coming from? Right now, there's two at best. The The Guardian article only mentions Buckmaster once, in almost 3000 words of text. Please also see WP:SIGCOV. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the two newspaper articles - from The Weekly Times and the Sydney Morning Herald - devoted entirely to Buckmaster's book? Do they not count? Eruditewookie (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're seeing different sources. I will go through them one by one:
  1. uow.edu.au: Thesis by Buckmaster, so not independent.
  2. Home Truths: I cannot find the words "Luke", "critics" or "Buckmaster" in this book when searching inside on Google Books. Google Books may be erroring, but it's usually really good at OCR and picks up other text fine. Are you sure you have cited the correct book?
  3. The Guardian: as @CanonNi stated, a single brief mention.
  4. The Guardian: Article by Buckmaster, so not Independent.
  5. thesaturdaypaper: Article by Buckmaster, so not Independent.
So I count one secondary source that does not provide significant coverage and one secondary source that doesn't even seem to include the quote you stated, though I admit as I do not have the physical book in front of me I may be incorrect. This is not four @Eruditewookie! Qcne (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is the correct book. Google books often only show small amounts of a book (otherwise publishers would be rather upset). Would it help if I took a photo of the page from the book and shared it? Eruditewookie (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't do that. You can use offline sources it's just a little more difficult to verify.
You mentioned above you added in sources from The Weekly Times and the Sydney Morning Herald: I see no source from Sydney Morning Herald but you are correct, you have an external link (not a citation) for the weeklytimesnow: as this was not properly formatted as a citation it doesn't appear in the References List so both I and @CanonNi missed it.
The Weekly Times Now review is okay at reviewing the book he wrote, but doesn't do much to show his notability as an author. Qcne (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your list of sources does not include the Sydney Morning Herald and the Weekly Times articles. Are they not appearing? Is it possible these articles are not being seen by your guys, for some reason? Eruditewookie (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above, there is definitely no source in the article for the Sydney Morning Herald; the The Weekly Times source was added as an external link not a citation - so it didn't appear in the Ref List. Qcne (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eruditewookie I've now formatted the Weekly Times source as a proper source, and it now appears as ref number #2 Qcne (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just converted the two external links into proper citations, as required by WP:EXTERNAL. This has slightly messed up the order of my ref list above.
Let me know if you can find the Sydney Morning Herald source? Qcne (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have found it and added it to the page. My mistake - I thought I did that Eruditewookie (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, not seeing any new changes. You need to press the Publish button, which commits the changes to the draft. Qcne (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the URL - https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/carnage-and-cars-rule-in-this-road-trip-through-george-millers-mad-max-series-20170720-gxf1y5.html
(I went in to add it but there was an editing page conflict and now I'm a bit nervous/uncertain, are you able to add this citation for me? thank you....) Eruditewookie (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, we probably edit conflicted when I was fixing your citations. Where in the text do you want this citation to go?
Regarding the source itself; it is an okay one. It is derived partly from an interview with Buckmaster so has some issues with independence, but does do some review of the book.
I am trying to prove notability either via WP:NAUTHOR or the more general WP:NBASIC criteria. I don't think he passes WP:NAUTHOR unless you can prove criteria #4, significant critical attention? We'd need quite a few more in-depth book reviews for that.
Otherwise, I default back to WP:NBASIC. I don't think we are quite there in proving notability under this criteria. Your secondary sources are okay but I think we would need one or two more that really gives significant coverage of Buckmaster through the use of commentary, analysis, discussion. For example, were his blockage of the bridge and arrest reported significantly in any other newspaper - not just him telling the world he did these things, but an independent reporter reporting that he did. Alternatively, do you have any more sources like the Williamson book, where an independent person is describing his contributions? Qcne (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I didn't cite either of those sources correctly. Now they've been cited. Hopefully that will fulfill the criteria. Thank you. Eruditewookie (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:00, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Cziksee[edit]

I don't understand why this article submission is declined for a lack of reliable sources, as it is sourced the exact same way badminton tournaments have been for years. Why is it different this time ? Am I missing something ? Thank you for your help. Cziksee (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cziksee. We review articles on their own merit, and both sources are primary sources. Do you have any secondary sources that discusses the tournament? Qcne (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No other source has ever been needed for this type of article, so I wouldn't know what to add, or where. I'll let someone more experienced on wikipedia than I do it. I'd appreciate if you could tell me why it was never an issue before, since all other tournaments seem to include only two primary sources, which I don't quite understand. Cziksee (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cziksee: there can be many reasons for that. In the past notability and referencing requirements were much less strict. Perhaps those earlier articles were created by users with sufficient permissions to create them directly without going through a review process. It could be that those existing articles should in fact be deleted or otherwise dealt with, but no one has got around to doing it yet (we do have approaching 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia). But regardless of how those articles came about, new articles must meet the currently-applicable policies and guidelines. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried adding a few sources. Can anyone confirm that I've done relevant changes towards article creation ? Cziksee (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted Qcne (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, have a great day. Cziksee (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Rafik.hannachi[edit]

Hello,

I hope this finds you well.

I would like assistance concerning the rejection of the article, I have altered the article according to the person who reviewed it . 

Rafik.hannachi (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging rejecting reviewer @DoubleGrazing Qcne (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, @Qcne. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rafik.hannachi: before I even take a(nother) look at the draft, I note that one thing you haven't done is disclose your paid editing. This was queried on your talk page months ago, twice, and also mentioned in my rejection comments. Please do so now. This is a hard requirement, not an optional extra. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Seems like I need to correct myself, albeit only slightly. A paid-editing disclosure has been made in this edit summary (IMO the least useful method to disclose, because if the disclosure isn't immediately obvious it's arguably not much of a disclosure; however, it's not this user's fault that we do accept this method). It was made the day after I had rejected the draft, and also a day after the user explicitly told me on their other account's talk page that they are "not getting compensated for the draft". Just wanted to set the record straight on that point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rafik.hannachi: This draft is promotional in tone, and reads more like an advert. I will be tagging it for speedy deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your reply. Just to also clarify, I am actually not getting extra compensated in any way concerning the draft, it is just part of my duties because of the nature of my job. Can you please advice on which parts that seem promotional so I can edit them. Thanks a lot in advance. Rafik.hannachi (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rafik.hannachi: the question wasn't are you being "extra compensated", but are you being "compensated", which you said you weren't. We take undisclosed paid editing quite seriously here, just so you know.
There is nothing to edit, as the draft has now been deleted.
You should read this, if you haven't already, and also show it to your boss: WP:BOSS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:39, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Awise1203[edit]

I need to know where can I find more reliable sources. Awise1203 (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Awise1203: the way the process works is that you summarise what reliable and independent sources have said about a subject, then cite those sources as your references; not first write whatever you want, and then try to find sources that back up what you've written – that's known as editing WP:BACKWARD.
If this series is only starting today, it's perfectly possible that sufficient sources don't yet exist (beyond the broadcaster's pre-launch publicity and things of that ilk, which obviously couldn't be used to establish notability). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:25, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Johnsamuels0[edit]

I don't understand which parts of this Wikipedia page are considered unsuitable for Wikipedia. Everything is written objectively with multiple sources. I want to emphasize that the doctor has authored many books, and the page primarily focuses on his publications. 




Johnsamuels0 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnsamuels0 please consult the reviewer Ratnahastin who rejected the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 21 May 2024 review of submission by PeaRidge62[edit]

Why is this page continually being rejected due to Valentina Gomez not being a politician? Shane Schoeller has his own Wikipedia page despite having less reliable sources, being a less significant candidate, and having the exact same number of sources as the draft article on Gomez. PeaRidge62 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been declined NOT rejected, it is not clear how they pass the criteria at WP:NPOLITICIAN, it's not that we don't believe they are one. Also see other stuff exists. Theroadislong (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but I still do not understand how much information and reliable sources I need to put on the page in order for it to be approved. PeaRidge62 (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PeaRidge62 Sufficient to verify, prove with referencing that they pass WP:NPOLITICIAN. Neither overdo this nor underdo it. Using Nike's slogan, "Just Do It!" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the draft of this article clearly satisfies WP:GNG. I look forward to its approval. PeaRidge62 (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined @PeaRidge62 looking forward may take some time 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PeaRidge62 Anther reviewer has rejected this draft. It will not proceed further. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:10:16, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Cooldudeseven7[edit]


Hello! I have recently attempted to get this schools wikipedia article online, And used plenty of good spaces. However, I have to notice that it has gotten declined, no reason specified by the reviewer. The AfC message says that my references do not qualify, However, all links are official links from the district. Do I need to resolve my [citation needed]'s in my article? coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. Do you have any news reports about the school? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few sources, but I still think this is close on notability as these mainly focus on the building works. I can't find any coverage of the School of Excellence award, which is a shame as this would have tipped it over the line I think. Mdann52 (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one, As it is documented on the official school page-https://www.wcpss.net/fulleres you should see it on the side. This link is for the excellence notation, and a proof that the school was previously distinction. Here is the link for distinction: https://www.wcpss.net/domain/4814 coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cooldudeseven7: it's not the 'School of Excellence award' (whatever that may be, exactly) per se that would make this school notable; it's that it might (or might not) have resulted in coverage in secondary sources which could help this school satisfy the WP:ORG notability criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. The "Excellence award" is related to the Magnet Schools of America merit awards, where "distinction" is lower than "excellence" coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have fixed some links, done some edits, and please read my message above, too:
Alright. The "Excellence award" is related to the Magnet Schools of America merit awards, where "distinction" is lower than "excellence" coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:11, 21 May 2024 review of submission by PhilDaBirdMan[edit]

I'm trying to make a route diagram but the source code isn't really working. PhilDaBirdMan (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilDaBirdMan: that's not really an AfC matter; you may wish to ask at the general help desk instead, or on the Template talk:Routemap page (and if you do, please be more specific than "isn't really working"). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 21 May 2024 review of submission by Ellpasha[edit]

Hello, I hope you are well. I need some advice on why my request was rejected. can you provide me more data 

Ellpasha (talk) 21:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Although I am not a official AfC reviewer, I have a few tips. When reading over your article, I noticed that there are not a lot of details, nor have you have placed an Infobox. Looking at this other music-related article, of Jvke, You might want to take some inspiration from here. coding lover, cooldudeseven7 (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellpasha: Neither of your sources are usable (One is too sparse, the other is pretty much just stuff he says). Infoboxen are the least of your worries; you need to find better sources first. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Shoja news/review sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 22[edit]

06:31, 22 May 2024 review of submission by 2402:E000:51D:C1D3:0:0:0:1[edit]

I have citation added. 2402:E000:51D:C1D3:0:0:0:1 (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
In the future, it would great if the citations you add actually supported something in the draft, or even just were in any way related to it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the draft, the deleted page and other parts.
Unfortunately, I can't see the rules around if someone is notable enough for an article being met here on the current sources avaliable online. Sorry. Mdann52 (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 22 May 2024 review of submission by Editorharpsweetrolls[edit]

i have sources only imdb and knowledge panel google, and two articles on medium about him, i have less sources, but whatever i provided is genuine. also he is new actor so that he don't have many articles about him. now tell me how i can give more info about him when i have this much info only, but his name is mentioned in ole aale cast on wikipedia. kindly request you to approve article . all information is valid and genuine. and if this article approve , more info about him get updated by the time, currently article need to approve . Editorharpsweetrolls (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorharpsweetrolls we cannot cite IMDb, as it is user-generated. (see WP:IMDB for more info) We also cannot cite Medium, as it is a blog-hosting service. The draft needs more sources about Poonia himself, not just the movies he acted in, especially when it's a small role like 'Guest'. (see WP:NACTOR) Nothing 'needs' to be accepted. This isn't a race. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is acceptable?? 49.36.111.50 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts that meet notability guidelines. Also, please log in when editing. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorharpsweetrolls: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
We literally can use none of your sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like WP:TOOSOON. ColinFine (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:31, 22 May 2024 review of submission by Ljefhejlwfhewl[edit]

how do i make it better Ljefhejlwfhewl (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljefhejlwfhewl: Give me one reason not to tag this draft as WP:G3 right now. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:30, 22 May 2024 review of submission by Alearzrsm[edit]

Hello, I have seen my draft declined for the Hybrid Practice band, but I have added a lot of information especially taken from the Encyclopedia Metallum Music Archive online. Furthermore, I am the founder of the band itself, so I can clarify further things if you need to know. Please let me know what to do. Alearzrsm (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alearzrsm, as the founder of the band, you have a glaring conflict of interest. You must make the mandatory Paid contributions disclosure. Encyclopaedia Metallum consists of user-contributed content and is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. Vast swathes of your draft are unreferenced, which violates the core content policy of Verifiability. Your other references are not independent. The repeated red links are bizarre, distracting and unnecessary. Your draft fails to make the case that this is a notable band. Cullen328 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Alearzrsm. Like many new editors, you have plunged straight into the challenging task of creating a new article without first acquiring the necessary skills - this is likely to lead to a great deal of frustration for you and others.
I always recommend new editors to spend (at least) several weeks making improvements to existing articles and learning how Wikipedia works before even trying this. Once you have understood fundamental principles such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article and try it - not before.
The fact that you are the founder makes it even harder to write an article - the thing to remember is that not one thing that you or your colleagues say or want to say about the band is relevant to the article, unless it has also been said by somebody completely unconnected with you (and not quoting you) and published in a reliable source; and that not one thing that you know about the band should go in the article, unless it has been published in a reliable source.
Basically, you will need to find several sources completely independent of you and the band, which contain enough material about the band to base an article on; and then you will need to forget everything you know about the band, and write a summary of those sources. Do you see why it is difficult to write with a conflict of interest? ColinFine (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 23[edit]

00:07, 23 May 2024 review of submission by OhHaiMark[edit]

Does this draft need anything before I submit it for review? OhHaiMark (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OhHaiMark: you need to show that the book is notable, either by WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, and a single source is not enough for that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:26, 23 May 2024 review of submission by Sargunajames[edit]

I need to be in Wikipedia so please accept my request even my profile in imdb please accept Sargunajames (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sargunajames we don't have profiles here, only articles about notable topics. Your draft does not meet our notability guidelines for people; it's a promotional draft about yourself. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:02, 23 May 2024 review of submission by ArtAfg[edit]

The page keeps being declined due to concerns about the reliability of the sources. The sources include Voice of America, BBC, and Afghan channels. Please review. ArtAfg (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArtAfg: we don't normally provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. However, this was such an obvious decline that I've just done that. You need to cite your sources inline, not just pile a bunch of external links in the 'References' section; see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
Please also remove all inline external links, and the excessive ones from the 'External links' section, as these are not compliant with WP:EL. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArtAfg: As I noted when I declined the draft, the majority of the sources appear to be articles written by the subject. They only indicate that the subject is a working journalist, not necessarily a notable one. The references need to by WP:RELIABLE media, but they also must be about Mr. Orokzai and must be intellectually independent from him. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:52, 23 May 2024 review of submission by PslyKittenNameGame[edit]

What if this is new information that has not previously been cited in historical literature that can be translated? Some of this is ancient information passed verbally, written in Sanskrit, and hieroglyphics PslyKittenNameGame (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PslyKittenNameGame: Wikipedia does not publish "new information". This is covered in the policy on orginal research. Specifically, "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.". So, if the "new information" has not been cited in literature, you cannot include it in an article. MarcGarver (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:02, 23 May 2024 review of submission by Gothicheights65[edit]

Can I get help from someone in improving the article quality? Gothicheights65 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gothicheights65: you need to be more specific – what help do you need? In any case, you've resubmitted this draft, so you will get feedback on it sooner or later, once a reviewer gets around to assessing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gothicheights65: Be warned this draft falls into multiple contentious topics (Indian Subcontinent, genetically-modified organisms). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:05, 23 May 2024 review of submission by Takeru Watanabe[edit]

The English article about Anja Utler has been added at wikidata (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q551311) but it still can't be seen in the English article that there is also a German article. Why is that? Thank you for your help. Takeru Watanabe (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Takeru Watanabe: the English and German articles are now linked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Takeru Watanabe (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't link them, they were already linked when I went to take a look. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then thanks anyway for looking. :-) Takeru Watanabe (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:01, 23 May 2024 review of submission by Glasgowsouthwest[edit]

This page was rejected, Zubir is likely to become the next MP for Glasgow South West, based on every poll. I disagree with the findings of the reviewer Glasgowsouthwest (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Glasgowsouthwest: okay, if that were to happen, then in 6 weeks' time he would be automatically presumed notable per WP:NPOL. Until then, he will have to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also take a read through Wikipedia:Crystalball McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 23 May 2024 review of submission by Valuenyc[edit]

Only a few hours ago, I requested help DELETING this page in order to allow someone else's newer draft to be considered. As I explained in my proposed deletion, he is being held up by the existence of this earlier draft. @GB fan: deleted my PROD saying it is not used in Draft space. This is something I feared, but I did hope for some direction about how to get rid of this thing. Minutes later, @Theroadislong: finally declined my draft. This is fine (really, a welcome development after about 6 weeks while someone else has developed something more substantial), but I'm still at a bit of a loss. How do I get this declined draft out of the way of someone who wants to get his new draft considered? It _does_ appear that there are now two drafts in the queue on this subject, but I can't speak with authority. So I'll repeat a central question: Should the person taking this project over just paste his new draft over my old submission? Will that provoke a new review? Or do we have to delete this draft page in order to get a new draft considered? and if so, how? Please accept apologies for creating complications, but I'm trying to set it right. I will be very grateful for any direction here. Valuenyc (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valuenyc, Where is the second draft? ~ GB fan 20:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valuenyc the declined draft is not in the way 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing to apologize .... Before I posted the PROD, my successor author (@Mightythos77:) received a rejection saying "This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Felix Albrecht Harta, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one." This is dated 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC).
Then as I said, in quick succession after I posted my PROD dated 15:44 on May 23, @GB fan: deleted my PROD and @Theroadislong: rejected my draft. So, trying to keep it simple here, is @Timtrent: saying that only Mightythos77's draft is now in the queue for review? or it is not? Since mine is still displaying in DRAFT space, is mine still occupying space in the queue? and his also in the queue for review?
@GB fan: and @Timtrent: : Many thanks for taking the time to try to sort thru this. I appreciate it very much. Valuenyc (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valuenyc Do not tag team with your nephew. That is meat puppetry. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: If my response is not 100% on point, it is only because I do not entirely understand your post. If I understand meatpuppetry as explained on the page you linked, you're simply way off. Neither of us is promoting one side of a dispute or another, let alone causing "disruption" on wikipedia, with two drafts relatively hidden from view of the vast majority of users. What dispute would we talking about anyway? There is none.
I intended to suggest that @Mightythos77: simply paste his text over mine, leaving one draft in the queue and leaving me out of the picture. I still have no idea whether that was, indeed, the correct way to go, and so far, this Help desk hasn't illuminated much. But that question has become moot since he submitted before I knew about it. Such mis- and cross-communication happens between ordinary mortals.
I appreciate your comment that my draft is "not in the way" and I have finally found the second/later draft in the queue. Given the message Mightythos77 first received however, it was not an unreasonable question.
But I'm even more lost about what "tag-teaming" even means. I can only respectfully point out that this inquiry began with my attempt to simply delete my draft, thus extracting myself from a behind-the-scenes process on wikipedia. Just what are you referring to with tag-teaming? two users inadvertently submitting drafts on the same topic? or two users inquiring about status?
We have both apologized if ignorance has led to some redundancy or mis-guided questions. But accusations like meatpuppetery and tag-teaming are unwarranted. Valuenyc (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your actual question, @Valuenyc? Can you précis in a sentence or two, rather than writing War & Peace? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valuenyc This encyclopaedia has a wonderful resource. Tag team is explained. Here, two related users working in the same draft. But you have explained that satisfactorily. I skimmed your tl;dr screed, but what is your question, please. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Answers emerged from the fog. No need for further discussion here. Valuenyc (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:39, 23 May 2024 review of submission by Jrodriguezrentas[edit]

Can someone please look at the new draft posted? Jrodriguezrentas (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jrodriguezrentas I looked at it. I have seen that it has been rejected and thus will not proceed further. You may query this with the reviewer who rejected it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jrodriguezrentas Please don't ask me to look at it again and you have in a perplexing message non my user talk page. It is S0091 who rejected it, and is to them you must appeal if you wish them to change their rejection. You need to make the approach. I have not pinged them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 24[edit]

02:03, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Globeltime[edit]

hey i re edited again this. Pls, tell me it's ok or not. Thankyou, Have a nice day. Globeltime (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Globeltime: no, it most certainly is not okay, far from it. Most of your alleged references aren't references, they're just external links piled in the 'References' section. None of your sources are reliable, apart from maybe the last one, which is also useless as it supports nothing in this draft. Please see WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:GNG for the standard that your sources must meet. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Globeltime, you wrote raised by honest teacher parents in a tiny apartment. In his 11 years as a student, he received many awards from local schools How do you know that? How can the reader verify that? What is your relationship with this person? Cullen328 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2004 to 2016, Myanmar local school dose not used social media, or newspaper event. cause local school are poor. But I have aa soft copy of certificate these many awards. and I know him. He is my neighbor. We live government tiny apartment. . Globeltime (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Globeltime, please read No original research. Things you know through your own personal experience are not permitted on Wikipedia. Your have a conflict of interest about people who you know personally. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:58, 24 May 2024 review of submission by 82.46.123.194[edit]

Hi there,

Could you please let me know what we can do to get this published? I strongly disagree with the lack of notability point - we've included independent sources from household-name publications, like the Telegraph, The Guardian, and The Grocer. None of these are paid articles, and those listed by our competitor, Union Hand-Roasted Coffee, are less independent and 'notable'.

We've done everything according to the feedback of your moderators, and this is now nothing like an advertisement.

For full transparency, I work for Pact Coffee, but the initial submission was done by an independent writer, and this has been cleaned up by your business team - we just want to get this over the line.

Happy to work with you if you feel anything else needs clearing up - we just believe this to be unfair in the spirit of competitive business when our competitor is being held by far less strict standards. 82.46.123.194 (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this draft has been rejected, if you wish to appeal the rejection you should in the first instance approach the rejecting reviewer directly.
You may wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before making your appeal, so that you don't rely too much on the arguments refuted in that.
Who is "we" in your message?
And finally, are you Asmith1990 (who has made a paid-editing disclosure)? If so, please log into your account whenever editing. (And if you're not Asmith1990, then have you made a similar disclosure?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Ejaz-Booni[edit]

I am the employee of this organization, my article about this organization is declined citing I had not enough resources, my question, what I kind of sources, reference I need to put in, in the scenario when I am writing this on behalf of that organization? Ejaz-Booni (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejaz-Booni As an employee you must declare this under the terms of WP:PAID. I am about to leave instructions on your talk page assuming someone has not already done so. The reviewer perhaps ought to have added to their review:
"We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today."
This you now have the information you need. This is a volunteer project. Since you are an employee you are paid for the time you take to research what you need. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejaz-Booni I just no Declined this draft. You have work to do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 24 May 2024 review of submission by WikiSchlomo-08[edit]

Thank you for your input and attention, Mr. Marcus.

I didn't understand the specific reason why my article was declined, as the explanation was a bit generalized and ambiguous. Was it because it was too short?

I look forward to hearing from you and working together to find a solution for the publication of my article.

Thank you so much, sir. WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08 I'm not Mr. Marcus, but I suppose I'll answer anyway. The draft was declined for not meeting notability guidelines. Out of the 3 sources, 2 are from the company's website, and 1 is the software's docs. None of these sources can be used to establish notability. The draft needs independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage on the subject. And, after doing a quick Google search, no such sources were found. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as CanonNi put it, those are the reasons for my declination. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sir for your reply!
If possible, I would love to obtain the help of both of you to correct my article (with the aim of finding a solution for a future publication of the article).
Looking forward to hear from you again WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your Clarification Mr.CanonNi!
So, what would you suggest in order to solve the issue?
This Software is not very famous (because it is the first and only FOSS Android that was ever created, and it is only downloaded through F-droid).
I don't have much time to check it today... But so far, the only strong reputable sources I could find beyond F-droid (which is the Software Repository I did include), are:
1)Medium
https://medium.com/@xenovandestra/free-open-source-anti-virus-anti-malware-software-apps-for-android-os-4b2ca310d91c
2)Techno360
https://www.techno360.in/hypatia-free-open-source-malware-scanner-android/
3) Codeberg
https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/hypatia
4)FossDroid
https://fossdroid.com/a/hypatia.html
5)Alternativeto
https://alternativeto.net/software/hypatia-malware-scanner/about/
How many legitimate sources should be required to make a publication? There a minimum amount? WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
first and only FOSS Android antimalware* WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08 we need to see at least three solid sources that squarely meet the WP:GNG standard. None of the ones you've listed here could be described as solid by any stretch of definition. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the standards.
I did read it, and most of the sources seem to fail in the "Independent of the subject" parameter, as many of the listed sources either share the software or are its creators.
However, I did notice a source that I don't understand why it isn't considered "Solid"... Medium.com is a large and reputable news magazine with millions of viewers, and I believe it meets the criteria listed.
Although it is just one reputable source (two are still needed). WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I check again, and I also believe Techno360 meets the criteria (however, one is still needed - and I need some time to look better on internet) WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked* WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check that each one of your sources passes the triple criterion of reliable, independent, and significant coverage, as explained in golden rule.
Then, you need to forget everything you know about the subject, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion!
Regarding the material I did write, there was any part that did seem a bit biased? If there was, I appreciate your constructive criticism to point me that out (because that will help me to improve the work already done - and possibly to make a better work in future publications).
Please, I appreciate any help you could provide :) WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08: Medium is just a self-publishing platform, effectively a glorified blogging site, and is not considered reliable in the slightest because anyone can write there anything they want; see WP:MEDIUM. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_(website)
According to Wikipedia's own resources, that classification isn't 100% correct.
The platform is an example of social journalism, with a hybrid collection of amateur and professional individuals and publications, including exclusive blogs or publishers on Medium. Although it is often seen as a blog host, it is internally regulated with strict guidelines (similar to how Wikipedia operates).
Therefore, it could arguably be considered a reliable source. WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. See WP:MEDIUM; self-published content is generally not considered reliable. The source in question seems to be written by a herbs expert, which has nothing to do with antivirus software. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have knowledge of the existence of this list - I actually appreciate the fact you shared this list with me (because I will be able to check different sources on it).
Thank you so much, you are actually helping me out a lot here! :D WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys!!!... I'm really sorry to bother you, but I need your help!
I tried to submit this article for review for a potential future publication, but I'm not sure if it was even submitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WikiSchlomo-08&oldid=1225776412
Please, if possible, could any of you have a look and try to help me out? I'm so sorry, I'm still a noob!!...
@MicrobiologyMarcus @CanonNi @DoubleGrazing @ColinFine WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MicrobiologyMarcus
@CanonNi
@DoubleGrazing
@ColinFine WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S I also want to delete this "hypathia" article - I couldn't find a source like I wanted, so this is a bad article to waste time. I want to just move on for another publications (but I don't know how to delete this one) WikiSchlomo-08 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiSchlomo-08 It is now at Draft:It's FOSS instead of on your user page. It is not submitted, but the submit button is present. If you feel ot to be ready click the button. I have not examined it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked that Draft:Hypatia (antivirus software) be deleted citing your request just above. An alternative would have been simply to abandon it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:13, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Jim0076899[edit]

I do not understand why my article is not accepted when I see many others, very similar to mine, online. My company uses this MFA solution and I want to write about them to let others know about it. Can you please help me understand?

Thank you for your assistance.

Jimmy Jim0076899 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim0076899 please consider that the reviewer has said it appears to be an advert. I agree with them. Please read HELP:YFA and rewrite it. It looks like a brochure.
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what looks like an ad? I am just listing facts about the product? Thank you. Jim0076899 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the advertising. Wikipedia is not a product directory. Wikipedia wants to know what independent reliable sources say about a topic, with significant coverage beyond its existence and features- telling how the product is notable.
If you see other articles like your draft, that is only because we haven't addressed them yet. If you want to help us address them, please identify them so we can take action. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you work for the company that produces this product, the Terms of Use require you to disclose that, see WP:PAID. Note that "paid editing" includes employment. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (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) 20:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim0076899: you say "[your] company uses this" – what is your company? It wouldn't be Draft:RCDevs Security SA by any chance, would it? I'm asking because you've written two drafts, one on this 'authentication solution', the other on the company developing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that you say I want to write about them to let others know about it. That is the very definition of promotion, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:40, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Terry Phillips[edit]

I created an article about Mark Bauman in my sandbox. Today, I attempted to move it to the main Wikipedia space. However, it includes several header messages: "This article, Mark Bauman, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. Please check to see if the reviewer has accidentally left this template after accepting the draft and take appropriate action as necessary." Terry Phillips (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Terry Phillips That was you. You left them there. It would have been wiser to await a review. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bauman where users may leave policy based opinions for or against deletion. Terry Phillips this includes you, your opinion carries as much weight as anyone else's and will be welcome. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Terry Phillips: What is your connexion to Bauman or any of the organisations he's associated with? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:12, 24 May 2024 review of submission by 2601:204:F301:A330:14A6:1D0F:F32C:165A[edit]

I don't really really know why you rejected it but I kinda need help 2601:204:F301:A330:14A6:1D0F:F32C:165A (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this with the editor who rejected it 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article begins by finding independent reliable sources which discuss the subject of the article in some depth. Starting to write an article without having found these is like trying to build a house without surveying the site to check it is safe to build on, and without checking local building regulations. The chances of building something that will not fall down are slight. ColinFine (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:51, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Charlie Alexander Muir[edit]

My article got rejected and I'm not sure why 

Charlie Alexander Muir (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlie Alexander Muir Please see WP:NOT 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:33, 24 May 2024 review of submission by Saraalutz[edit]

I found a source for every single sentence and now when I submitted it, I got this error: An error occurred (ratelimited: You've exceeded your rate limit.

How long do I have to wait to resubmit? Saraalutz (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you managed to submit it soon afterwards, so I'll assume this is in order now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:49, 24 May 2024 review of submission by 24.191.217.79[edit]

Can an editor please look at this revised draft and tell me if it has a chance of being accepted for publication if resubmitted or if more work needs to be done? (I mostly revised the footnotes and sources) And if it's the latter, what should be done to improve its chances for publication acceptance? Thanks. 24.191.217.79 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without analysing the sources in detail, it's not possible to say whether they're enough to establish notability. If you feel you've sufficiently addressed the earlier decline reason, then resubmit it and that way you'll get a proper review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it--thank you. 24.191.217.79 (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 25[edit]

05:28, 25 May 2024 review of submission by Dakrfox65536[edit]

biography Dakrfox65536 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dakrfox65536: you don't ask a question, but this draft was declined because it isn't in English. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dakrfox65536, this is the English Wikipedia. Try the Hindi Wikipedia instead. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:36, 25 May 2024 review of submission by CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine[edit]

I just need more sites to cite for verification. I'm having trouble finding some. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine: do you have a question you'd like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already found as much information as I could about this draft. I feel like I need more though, but I can't find any since there are two aircrafts using the same registration code. Is there any other way? CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine: an individual aircraft would have to be pretty remarkable to be independently notable; just having existed doesn't make it so, and even having featured new technologies or acted as a testbed for them wouldn't really mean it has a lasting legacy etc. What is it about this particular flying machine that would justify its place in a global encyclopaedia? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing. Then how is this article accepted? Only notable stuff here is that this is the first 737 ever built and that it was operated by NASA for flight testing. What else? CreatorMH (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which describes a common Wikipedia variant of whataboutery.
If you're unhappy with that article, you're welcome to improve it, or if it cannot be improved, tag it with appropriate maintenance templates, or possibly initiate deletion proceedings.
Now, returning to my question, what makes this aircraft noteworthy enough to be included? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing. N767BA played a pivotal role in revolutionizing long-haul air travel by introducing advanced aerodynamics, avionics, and operational efficiency. Notably, this was the first Boeing twin-engine wide-body aircraft. N767BA also helped Boeing to reuse some internal and external design for future aircraft types like the Dreamliner, helping Boeing to save money. CreatorMH (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prototype, leading to other Boeing 767 variants, helped Boeing compete with Airbus's A300, A310, and A330-200. CreatorMH (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine: okay, thanks.
Why doesn't the draft say any/most of that, then? And according to which source are these the case?
And while I can see why being "the first Boeing" of a certain type, "helping Boeing save money", "helping Boeing compete", etc. would make this an important aircraft for Boeing, that doesn't really answer my question why this deserves its own entry in an encyclopaedia.
Anyway, the draft has been submitted, so we don't need to debate this here; you can just wait for the review to take place, and with some luck this may get accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:25, 25 May 2024 review of submission by Zfarahi[edit]

Article declined Zfarahi (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zfarahi: yes. That's not a question – did you have one in mind? Please read carefully the decline notice and my accompanying comments. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please what to add i am added enugh refrences what more to add please tell Zfarahi (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
can we add a wikipedia article in refrence ? Zfarahi (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfarahi: you certainly haven't cited sufficient sources; the three that there are contribute nothing in terms of notability.
And no, you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia.
Please read the notability guidelines I've linked in my comment, and show that this village is notable by either of them. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but my village details is not plenty available on internt it is available on few website blogs indian ailway website my village railway station please verify from that please Zfarahi (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zfarahi: sources don't need to be online. They do, however, need to be reliable (which a blog isn't), and they need to provide significant coverage of the subject, which none of the ones you're citing does. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to refrence what more to refrence tell me point to point please Zfarahi (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My article declined but i refrences with blog indian railways website please tell me what to add what link to add to make it verifiable and good article and no decline please Zfarahi (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start a new thread, just add to the existing one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:37, 25 May 2024 review of submission by User1373478[edit]

This was declined from being added to Wikipedia because I did not have reliable sources. Could I please have help to fix the referencing in this? User1373478 (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User1373478: there's far too much unreferenced content - where did all that information come from? And the source mostly supporting this draft is a wiki of some sort, which isn't reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to reference each sentence? Because all the information came from only the sources referenced. User1373478 (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User1373478: yes, pretty much, or at least every material statement. Now you have several paragraphs entirely unreferenced, which is unacceptable in an article on a living person (WP:BLP). And, as I said already, your main source is not reliable.
None of the sources also are acceptable as evidence of notability per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:40, 25 May 2024 review of submission by Thevikastanwar[edit]

Please help me for publish this article Thevikastanwar (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thevikastanwar You took an image of this person and she posed for you. What is your connection with her? You must disclose this, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.
Rejection typically means that resubmission is no longer possible. If you have fundamentally changed the draft and addressed the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot To be fair, I think @Thevikastanwar found images on the web and uploaded them to Commons claiming they were their own work. I have warned them on Commons for one copyright violation and requested they supply permission for the file used in the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:49, 25 May 2024 review of submission by Qevxoo[edit]

I want to post information about my Hacker group pls Confirm it or tell me what to add for confirm Qevxoo (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qevxoo Wikipedia has no interest in what youi wish to say about your own group. We are only interested in what others say about it in reliable, independent, secondary sources. No sources? No article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qevxoo: No sources, no article, no debate. An article would also seem to be counterproductive to the group and its goals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want people to know about this team Qevxoo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qevxoo: okay, enough now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qevxoo: I invite you to read what I just wrote above. Merging sections. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qevxoo Please avail yourself of your own website, blog, social media accounts. Please do not attempt to bulldoze this into Wikipedia. You wil be unsuccessful. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:22, 25 May 2024 review of submission by ScruffyBoots[edit]

Hello, I have just had this article rejected again, and although I read the rejection reasons; really don't understand why it lacks importance due to being deep in history for the local Alvescot Parish in Oxfordshire. What do I need to do before resubmitting? Thank you! ScruffyBoots (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScruffyBoots not a hoax as I first thought, but not an article. It's a meander through what appears to be a vanity title, just like all hereditary titles. Lacks references.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
Read WP:REFB WP:CITE and HELP:YFA and consider whether this is likely to fly of totally and brutally edited down 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScruffyBoots It has been rejected. I admit that I was seriously considering doing that when I left you this advice instead. Rejection means that it will not proceed further, unless you can negotiate a retraction with the reviewer who rejected it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, understood! However, I do have a question remaining: I had a pop-up message yesterday to say that I have had my IP blocked from editing on Wiki for two years, then another pop-up saying the same but have been blocked for three months. 
Can you clarify if I am blocked or not and for how much time please as I don't seem to be able to find any blocking indication anywhere? 
If I am blocked, I find that harsh and dispute a blocking as being suitable treatment for a newbie. We all make mistakes and if the person who blocked me is perfect in everything that they do, I would like to know their secret. Education is a better policy, although what is simple to understand education for an expert may not be so when someone is learning. With apologies! ScruffyBoots ScruffyBoots (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScruffyBoots I am not an admin, so can only see to a certain level. I see no block entries against you. I have never edited from an IP range that is blocked, so cannot say if that is a usual popup mechanism im that circumstance. I think you will get a better answer at WP:TEAHOUSE. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 26[edit]

10:01, 26 May 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:2C1B:5BF1:79FE:B165[edit]

Hi! This football player has a draft page that was resubmitted month ago after source improvements. As I see there are no rules that could be broken, also here are some local mentions about him in wiki before placing on the football team player page Independiente Santa Fe (source number 3). Could you please share some wiki rules that could help to transfer this draft to the wiki space or answer why it is not possible. Thanks! 2A02:A312:C43C:7680:2C1B:5BF1:79FE:B165 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was submitted for review and will be reviewed in due course. There is no deadline. In the meantime please continue to work on it if you believe improvements to be possible. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:15, 26 May 2024 review of submission by Februarymay2003[edit]

Need guidance on the reliable source note. Three links are official government pages that the public references.. Februarymay2003 (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Februarymay2003: as I don't know what the reviewer had in mind, I can only answer this indirectly, by saying that I would have declined the draft for lack of evidence of notability, because while the sources probably are reliable, they don't satisfy the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Februarymay2003 I noticed that you resubmitted it. I have no Declined is with a much more specific rationale. Note, please, that you do not present Smith as being in any manner notable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. He is literally listed on the New York City Public Advocate page with a link to a blank page. Check it out. 2603:7000:9B3F:4426:D188:95C7:E931:DEFD (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is true. Being a public advocate at city level confers no automatic notability. We would need to see sources which satisfy the WP:GNG standard. Primary sources do not do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Februarymay2003 I have left you a comment on the draft rather than decline it a second time. At the moment you are doing small works and requesting that reviewers do larger work to review your small works. I have explained what you need to be doing. I predict that this will be declined again unless you do the work, sufficient work to show that Smith passes WP:BIO. At present he does not, and may never do so. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Februarymay2003 Three experienced reviewers have now left you independent opinions and advice on the minimalistic draft. Thinking further about this I believe you are mistaking that Smith is listed on the New York City Public Advocate page with notability. That listing verifies that he is a post holder, no more and no less. This is a pedantic and real distinction. Many people may be shown to exist, almost none of them have notability, except, of course, to those who love or respect them. As an example, I can show, online, that I exist. I have absolutely no notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Februarymay2003: Government documents and websites are useless for notability in all circumstances, as they are primary sources. (This also includes court documents and anything else produced by a government organ.) https://www.cityandstateny.com/power-lists/2024/03/2024-trailblazers-law/394895/ is borderline as it's a listicle, I can't assess Crain's (walled), and https://abny.org/abny-event/boardroom-breakfast-with-nick-e-smith-first-deputy-public-advocate/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 26 May 2024 review of submission by DerekE9831[edit]

Hello! This is my second attempt. I was unable to get anyone to respond when I originally posted this on May 17th. I'd like to ask for an additional set of eyes to take a look at the Draft:Trevor David Rhone. I think Rhone's research on 2 dimensional magnetic materials has had a significant impact in his field, and he also received recognition from the American Institute of Physics and the National Society of Black Physicists. I think he satisfies notability, but any additional feedback is appreciated.

Thank you. DerekE9831 (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DerekE9831: can you be more specific and tell us exactly which criterion/-a of WP:NACADEMIC you feel Rhone satisfies, and what evidence supports that? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 27[edit]

01:42, 27 May 2024 review of submission by Xinxin Ming[edit]

Hello,

This submission was rejected due to lack of notability.

Some of the citations are certainly dependent coverage, namely the references to the organization's website and one of the references to an article that was authored by a leader in the organization (Kate McCandless).

However, I have questions about why the other citations don't qualify. Two of the citations are to academic books, independently published by authors unaffiliated with the organization. The lengths of mentions in the books are about a paragraph each. To my eyes, this seemed like it would qualify as "multiple independent reliable sources" as described by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Am I missing something here?

In addition, one of the articles cited was authored by someone unaffiliated with the organization (it was, however, published by a third-party, Northwest Dharma, that exists to promote other Buddhist organizations -- if that is still considered dependent coverage, fair enough, but I'd be curious to know for certain).

What are some concrete examples of additional citations that would help qualify this article for notability, if not independent academic publications?

Any other suggestions for how I might improve this article?

I have, for the record, declared a Conflict of Interest on the talk page that reads:

Many thanks,

XXM Xinxin Ming (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing tagging you here as you were the initial reviewer. Xinxin Ming (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xinxin Ming: the draft has six citations, two to the organisation's own website (obviously not independent), two to Northwest Dharma Association (a primary source), and one to the Matthews book which makes only a brief mention of the organisation (literally two sentences, as far as I can tell). The remaining one I don't have access to, but no matter how good it may be, it alone isn't enough to satisfy WP:ORG; we typically require three sources meeting the standard outlined in WP:GNG.
Thank you for making the disclosure. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:27, 27 May 2024 review of submission by 151.192.207.156[edit]

I refer to the speedy deletion of my draft submission. Can I retrieve my submission for modification so that it complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Pls let me have the link to my deleted article for retrieval and modification. Thanks KC Lun 151.192.207.156 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're Wikikclun).
And please read the message posted on the bottom of your talk page User talk:Wikikclun.
Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:54, 27 May 2024 review of submission by Iridium27[edit]

The tittle of the page was changed and we think that the current tittle is not informative. The tittle seems to overlap with already existing tittles such as "Nanocluster" and "Thiolate-protected gold cluster". Furthermore, it is currently ambiguous and not totally aligned with the content. Is it possible to change the tittle to be more informative? We would suggest it to be "The crystal structures of monolayer protected clusters", because the crystal structures are the main focus of the page. Iridium27 (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridium27: technically speaking this is no longer an AfC matter, since the article was published a couple of days ago. You should go to the general Help desk or the Teahouse with editing queries like this.
I presume the current title was chosen by the accepting reviewer, because at the time of acceptance the beginning of the draft read:

Monolayer protected clusters (MPCs) are one type of nanoparticles or clusters of atoms. A single MPC contains...

The way encyclopaedia articles (unlike, perhaps, many other works) are written is that the title term (in bold), which defines the subject of the article, is typically the article title, and vice versa.
The article could be moved to a different title, including by you since you have confirmed account status. However, whether it should be moved is a different matter. There are many considerations in naming articles, please study WP:TITLE before attempting to do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you for the advise. I'll check the naming page and ask from the general section. Iridium27 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:06, 27 May 2024 review of submission by Thesazh[edit]

Waiting for review Thesazh (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesazh: that's not a question; did you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry! I meant to ask, to help me on the article I've written regarding the sources I have mentioned were reliable enough or do I need to gather more sources? Thesazh (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesazh: you're effectively asking us to review your draft, which isn't something we do here at the help desk; a reviewer will assess it sooner or later, please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 27 May 2024 review of submission by Mssandipan[edit]

How to fixed it Mssandipan (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mssandipan: how to fixed (sic) what? What are you asking? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that you have not read our guidelines and that you have an undeclared conflict of interest. If you want to promote your business, please go elsewhere. Deb (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 27 May 2024 review of submission by Abhi892[edit]

What should I do so that my article dosen't get rejected. being part of the same organisation on which I am writting article, I am feeling very helpless as even I have to justify that what I am producing is correct. Please help me out in updating the same. Abhi892 (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhi892: your draft (not yet article) has been rejected.
For future reference, what you should not do is just keep resubmitting without any attempt to address the decline reasons; that is a sure-fire way to end up with a rejection.
What you must also do is disclose your conflict of interest (COI). I've posted instructions on your talk page.
Are you involved in some sort of campaign to create articles on topics related to the Indian military? I'm only asking as we're seeing a lot of such drafts recently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 27 May 2024 review of submission by Musicabdmediaentgroup[edit]

I am very confused by the reasoning to deny my submitted article (subject: Rollin Jarrett). The submitted subject (article) CLEARY has honorable mentions worldwide and even mentions on wikipedia alone. All films mentioned in the submitted article (Rollin Jarrett) have their very own wikipedia articles and these films are written by Rollin Jarrett (the articles even reference ROLLIN JARRETT as the writer). All actors involved or associated with the films written by Rollin Jarret have their own articles and these articles show their roles in the films that are written by my submitted subject (Rollin Jarrett). Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Musicabdmediaentgroup like I said when declining the draft, it does not meet WP:NACTOR in its current state. We cannot cite IMDb or LinkedIn, and the 2 other sources do not mention Jarrett directly (i.e. no significant coverage). Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has zero independent, reliable published sources and you need to disclose your paid editing status. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I understand the cites you mentioned. But - you say the articles don't mention Mr. Jarrett directly? He's mentioned on them as the writer. For example: American Vampire (film) - Wikipedia
Any further help you can provide is appreciated. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot cite other Wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. And are you being paid for your editing? If you are you must disclose it per WP:PAID. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being paid to edit and nor do I know Mr. Jarrett personally. I mainly do music marketing and I have some involvment in film. After reading about his new release Daylight To Dark, I went to wikipedia to search for the subject. I thought it was increasingly odd and ironic that Mr. Jarrett did not have an article aleady but the films he has written does. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need citations that just mention him- they must provide significant coverage of him, coverage that goes beyond just telling of the existence of his work, and goes into detail about what makes him important/significant/influential- how he meets WP:NACTOR or more broadly WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will locate the appropriate citations and sources. I appreciate your help. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Musicabdmediaentgroup: it seems to me that you may think that simply doing one's job (be it as an actor, screenwriter, or other) makes one notable; this is not so. We're not doubting that Jarrett has been involved in films, we're saying that's not enough.
Also, there is quite a lot of unreferenced biographical information in this draft – where did all that come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All biographical information was found on various sites after reading about his latest film. Rotten Tomatoes, News articles, personal imdb page and sites interviewing him about film. There's many sites that reference him, I appear to only be referencing ones that aren't of credible nature on wikipedia. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Musicabdmediaentgroup: I see. Be that as it may, you must cite your sources, it's not enough to say that sources exist somewhere out there. We have especially strict standards for referencing articles on living people (WP:BLP), for privacy etc. reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1225888183"