Flame Azalea – Rhododendron calendulaceum

by | Dec 19, 2023 | Azalea

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back
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


June 25

04:38, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Whithhh

How do I successfully submit a page? How many references should I add? Whithhh (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whithhh: you need as many references (citations) as are required to comprehensively support the contents. Which source the personal details shown in the infobox? What about the educational background of the (entirely unreferenced) 2nd paragraph? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:23, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Sudheer Mattaparthi

I have incorporated some changes on the article . Could you please let me know in detail what exactly you are looking here. 

Sudheer Mattaparthi (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sudheer Mattaparthi: we want to know where all that information is coming from, and how it can be verified. You currently have one single source, cited once at the very end where the citation supports nothing. See WP:REFB for advice on referencing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:01, 25 June 2024 review of submission by GS1921

Please, be so kind and review a little bit changed page. If it has mistakes, please, could you specify it for me. Thank you very, very much for help. GS1921 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GS1921: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk; if you believe you've addressed the decline reasons sufficiently, you can resubmit the draft, and a reviewer will assess it some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: This draft was declined for lack of evidence of notability, which essentially depends on the sources. It looks like you have since removed three sources, without adding any news ones. Does it not stand to reason, therefore, that there is still not enough evidence of notability, and possibly less so than before? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:05, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Flamemadragon

My submission was declined and I don't understand why. The two issues were credibility and notability. On credibility, I referenced Tapology, one of the mainstream MMA record websites. On notability, there is a page for CES MMA, which is debately a less notable MMA promotion than Cage Titans (based on my experience as an MMA journalist in New England). Flamemadragon (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flamemadragon: this draft is far from acceptable, and could have been declined for a number of reasons.
You list (without even citing) a single source, Tapology, which seems to be at least partly user-generated, with no indication of editorial oversight, fact-checking practices, etc.; I would consequently question how reliable it is, regardless of whether it is "mainstream" or not. Besides, that source doesn't seem to provide any real information, and doesn't therefore support the contents of this draft. Please feel free to correct me on that, if I got it wrong; I only had a quick look at the source.
In any case, a single source is nowhere near enough to establish notability, which is another reason this draft could have been declined for. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tapology's information is gathered from accounts of MMA promotions, fighters, and coaches, when is then moderated through a team. I went through all of Cage Titan's events on Tapology to figure out who the current champion of each division is as well as the day they became champion and their # of defenses. Each of the listed fighters' tapology pages also shows their fights for Cage Titans as well as the higher promotions they fought for. Should I cite each of their individual tapology pages? I can also attempt to find articles about some of the fighters moving up to the bigger leagues if that works better.
Most of the champion information isn't readily available anywhere (as Cage Titans's own champion page is greatly outdated), which is why I wanted to establish an article showing said information after scouring the Tapology pages. I also established championship history from looking through Tapology that I'm waiting to get confirmed with Cage Titans. Optimally I would like to add that to this article in a similar way that CES MMA has a championship history on their article.
However given all this, do you think it might just be better for me to post an article on a journalism website rather than Wikipedia? My only qualm with posting on a journalism website is that articles are usually time locked, and it would be harder to find it say a year from now as opposed to Wikipedia that more time-permanent articles. Flamemadragon (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flamemadragon: putting aside everything else, the main question is can you find sufficient sources meeting the WP:GNG standard, to establish that this subject is notable? Notability is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, and without demonstrating it it isn't possible to publish an article on this subject, no matter what. Therefore this whole matter hinges on sources. Tapology (even if for the sake of the argument we accept it as reliable) isn't alone enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:02, 25 June 2024 review of submission by NGraywolf

How can I delete my draft? I jumped too fast and need to start over! NGraywolf (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NGraywolf: as you're the only editor of it, you can just blank the page or place the {{Db-g7}} speedy deletion template on it, and an administrator will come around and delete it (only admins can do that). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:52, 25 June 2024 review of submission by E11e99

I would be very grateful if I could please get some assistance and clarity around identifying the "peacock" terms used in this article and why the references are not considered appropriate? many thanks and kind regards, elle e11e99 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:57, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Volodymyr Dudnik

I have already supplemented the article several times and provided all possible categories and links, maybe I am missing something important or making some mistake. I really don't see how the article could be improved. I am asking for help. Volodymyr Dudnik (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Volodymyr Dudnik: Your draft has swathes of text that is completely unsourced. Four sources for an article of this size is not enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:20, 25 June 2024 review of submission by Devlimon

Article submission was rejected based on not having enough reliable sources. Would a link to the organization's active status be considered a reliable source? Or their website? Devlimon (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. To show that the organisation is sufficiently notable for an article you need to reference what other people say about it. See WP:NORG: you need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the organisation. Mgp28 (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 25 June 2024 review of submission by MaryGaulke

Hi! This draft was rejected for failing WP:GNG. I submitted this as a COI editor for Oyler's company BeiGene, so just hoping for a little clarity – Oyler has been the focus of what I believe is substantive coverage in Life Science Leader, South China Morning Post, and Pharma Exec. Are these publications too niche to meet WP:NBIO? I appreciate any guidance to inform my future work. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

02:41, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Noprita

Halo, may I know why this declined? and what can I do to make that page better as Wikipedia standard page? Noprita (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noprita: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halo Jeske,
I put the references link that JCPR indexed already
== JCPR's References ==
  1. ISSN Portal
  2. Garuda Kemendikbud RI
  3. Scilit
  4. Dimensions
  5. Academia
  6. LinkedIn
and I write the short about JCPR:
The Journal of Communication & Public Relations (JCPR) is a peer-review international academic journal published by LSPR Institute of Communication & Business. Issued twice a year, JCPR focuses on both theoretical development and practical research in communication studies and public relations studies. The journal's first edition was published in 2021 by LSPR Publishing, covering various areas including organizational communication, development communication, reputation management, government public relations, media relations, corporate communication, marketing communication, and public affairs communication.
How many words does Wikipedia require to create one page? Noprita (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noprita: Anything that merely indexes the journal is useless for notability (too sparse) and LinkedIn is worthless as a source full stop (connexion to subject). The heading of that section also implies something very different than what you think it does (specifically, that JCPR themselves use those as its sources, instead of the article citing them). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano Do you mean that to create a page on Wikipedia, it must have coverage in the mass media? Noprita (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to have sources - which are more likely to be in the realm of academia/more specialised sources than the mass media - that show that it meets one of the three criteria listed at WP:Notability (academic journals):
  1. That it is considered influential in its subject area;
  2. That it is widely cited by other reliable sources;
  3. That it has some historical importance in its subject area.
Sources that only index it do not help meet any of these criteria. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:03, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Sdsbran

Would like further explanation of why my article was denied because it is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. I want to learn more, not debate. Thank you very much. Sdsbran (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdsbran: The lists of services and notable clients should be removed wholesale. Aside from that, the draft overall reads like it was intended for potential investors, not Mitty from Kansas City. What is your connexion to Walz Tetrick Advertizing? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the fast response. I do not work for the company - I am retired, and a writer - the CEO hired me to write this for his company. Sdsbran (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The CEO hired me to write this for his company" is tantamount to working for the company. You are also obligated to disclose this on your Wikipedia userpage per our Terms of Use. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 03:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Related to WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. (User has been blocked as a promo account.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:11, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Kim alice film

Hello, I have made some new edits today (26 June 2024) to my submission Draft:Wash My Soul In The River's Flow. This is my first wiki submission so I just want to check the latest revision has been submitted correctly. I can't work out where it tells me that the latest submission is in and awaiting review. All help that I've been given so far is greatly appreciated. 

Kim alice film (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kim alice film: you have made one edit to this draft today, but haven't submitted it yet; you need to click on the blue 'resubmit' button (when you're ready). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @DoubleGrazing for your help with this. Much appreciated. Kim alice film (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Sivaanandgr

How to improve my articles Sivaanandgr (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sivaanandgr: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. I don't believe that you have any articles. For advice on article creation, see WP:YFA. For general advice on editing Wikipedia, try the Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:37, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Kingofstyle

more what should be improved in article 

Kingofstyle (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofstyle: this draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. Please don't write about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO, which explains why. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 26 June 2024 review of submission by KingMaker69

need help and suggestion for pulbiation of the article KingMaker69 (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KingMaker69: Try again, this time without writing an investors' brochure. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingMaker69: Your second attempt is still promotional, but not unsalvageably so. The problem it has now is that it's been written backwards, citing no sources. Everything beyond the "History and background" section needs to go as promotional/irrelevant. (The "Concluding Notes" section wouldn't fit here even if it were neutrally written; we're an encyclopaedia, not a college essay.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingMaker69: We don't cite Wikipedia (circular reference). If you're trying to link to another page, use [[double square braces]]. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
noted.. KingMaker69 (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KingMaker69 I've requested speedy deletion, again, it's still written like an advertisement brochure - totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:52, 26 June 2024 review of submission by ParulP0206

Hi Marcus, I recently submitted an article on Petrolink services, which was rejected with feedback indicating that it was not adequately supported by reliable sources and that it seemed to be a test edit rather than an article worthy of an encyclopedia.

1. I took all the sources available to support this topic. Should I wait for more sources to become available, or are there specific types of sources I should focus on? 2. Could the formatting or length of the article have contributed to the rejection? I intentionally did not include detailed descriptions of their products and services to avoid appearing promotional.

I would greatly appreciate your guidance on how I can improve the submission to meet Wikipedia's standards. ParulP0206 (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ParulP0206: I'm not Marcus, but I'll reply while waiting. Your draft Draft:Petrolink has been deleted as promotional. You have also been issued a warning against trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, please heed it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:18, 26 June 2024 review of submission by PaulDRamkissoon

I had added my company page and it was rejected without anyway of resubmitting, I would like to know what needs to be done to get approval? PaulDRamkissoon (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know what needs to be edited in my article so that it can be approved. PaulDRamkissoon (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaulDRamkissoon: please don't start multiple threads.
Your draft was rejected as promotional, and speedily deleted for the same reason. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion of any kind. Also, you clearly have a conflict of interest, which you must disclose if you intend to attempt this again (which I would strongly advise against, in any case). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:33, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

Dear moderator, please look at the article 1. American company 2. Staged the story 3. Unique You can approve, if you need information I will add it Arahi991 (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Del Mar Energy Company
@Arahi991: I've no idea what "1. American company 2. Staged the story 3. Unique" means, let alone has to do with anything, but this draft was rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Incidentally, do you have a connection with Solyankich, who recently created Draft:Del Mar Energy? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Al Right

We try to make a english version of the austrian-kurdisch musician and artist Scharmien Zandi. can you help us to verify the draft. thank you Al Right (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Dutch page of Sharmien Zandi. You can translate it. For the English Wikipedia, you need to understand and establish notability of Sharmien Zandi with reliable references about the subject person with minimal criterion to meet three mandatory nobility criterion. For further interest please check about reliability criterion. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:33, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Mistymoon222

Hi there,

I've recently submitted my first article and I am questioning whether my English is correct.

Does anyone know if there are guidelines as to what English region needs to be used?

For example, I wrote the article in English (UK) so words will be spelt like 'recognise' as opposed to 'recognize'. Do you think this will be an issue?

Thank you very much! Hope you're having an awesome day. Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistymoon222: if she's Australian, then Australian English would seem appropriate. That said, if you naturally write in British English, I don't think it would be reasonable to expect you to 'fake' Aussie English. In any case, none of this has any bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, so don't worry about it too much. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok that makes sense - thank you again for your time (and answering so quickly)! Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistymoon222: All that really matters with regards to the dialect of English used is that it is consistent throughout the article. While it is standard practice to use the dialect most associated with a given subject this is not a hard rule, and it's something that could very well be handled when/if the draft is accepted. The reviewers aren't going to ding a draft for ENGVAR unless it's bouncing between dialects like a drunken polyglot. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes perfect sense, thank you!
If you (or anyone) else is available for a few more questions, I would be very grateful.
I‘ve recently had my first article reviewed (for this page, Draft:Michaela Cook) and it’s been unaccepted due to unreliable sources. I am still learning (I read hundreds of similar Wiki’s to study their constructs so I could best create this and others I’m drafting within the guidelines) so would it please be possible for you to tell me which sources are deemed unreliable on this page?
Also, are articles behind a newspaper paywall not accepted either? The articles were included in the print copy of the newspaper, so would it be best to include the hard copy sourcing (incl. page numbers etc)?
Thank you again for your time! Mistymoon222 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mistymoon222, as an Aussie myself, our spellings are basically British anyway - colour, recognise, etc - so no need to worry about that bit.
Paywalls are fine but can be hard for reviewers to properly assess - so if you have non-paywalled sources as well that makes things easier.
Some short notes on sources to start you off: you are trying to establish that Cook is WP:NOTABLE in the very specific Wikipedia meaning of the term. Your sources must fit WP:42, our 'golden rule' - more info at those two links.
In general: LinkedIn can't be used. Interviews can only be used for really basic facts, like her birthdate or birthplace. Anything that only mentions her as part of a list of performers is also not going to help for notability. What you really want to find is articles that people have written about her, without any input from her, and for no reason other that they're interested in her (ie not by a company who she works with, or an employee of hers, and so on). I'll be happy to come back and review your current sources later if no one else has done so, but I'm out of time for Wiki right now - so good luck, happy editing, and perhaps we'll talk again! StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you so much for your time and linking further information!! Secondly, your explanation was really helpful and I’m about to pour over those links! If you by any chance can review a few of the sources and give me an example of what ones are reliable out of the ones there, I would be extremely thankful! I went through and added the ISSN numbers of publications and as much sourcing info as I could find as well. I didn’t realise you could tick extra boxes if you had extra information lol. Ps our spellings are the best! Thank you again and no stress if you’re unable to review any sources! Mistymoon222 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again @Mistymoon222! Okay, let's have a look at your current sources. I'm going to start off by saying that biographies of living people (WP:BLP) are the hardest kind of article to write, so please don't be discouraged if you have trouble with this draft - there's a lot to keep in mind and a lot of work to do if you want to get one through. You have all the time you need and plenty of other people to answer questions. Plus you can get some experience editing other articles of interest to you while you wait for draft reviews or just for more sources - sometimes it's just too soon for an article on someone, and you have to wait until they get more notable. I'm more than happy for you to leave a note on my talk page whenever you run into something new or weird that needs explaining, so keep that in mind!
The goal here is to establish notability, which means you need a good source (by Wikipedia standards) for every statement you make. A good source needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic (this is good old WP:42 again). If a source fails any of those criteria, it can't be used for notability. I know this can be incredibly frustrating, which is why BLPs are so difficult!
1) is an interview, which means it can't contribute to notability (not independent). You can use it for some basic info - the name of her husband, the year of their marriage - but not for your main goal of establishing notability.
2) is paywalled, and archive.org can't get me in, so I can't assess it. The title makes me think it might be an interview, so my instinct is you probably can't use it for notability (not independent).
3) is a promo biography, so again no use for notability (not independent).
4) is from LinkedIn, which isn't accepted at all (not reliable, not independent) - I'd completely ditch this reference if I were you because I think it will be deleted on sight if the draft is published!
5) is, alas, another interview (not independent).
6) is another interview, you know where I'm going with this.
7) is a government document, which we don't use, and definitely doesn't have significant coverage. I'd remove this one as well, personally - you already have a better reference for the statement you're supporting, even if it's an interview, because at least there's a bit of context in the interview. That being said, if you could find an independent+significant source that would be much better.
8) is another interview, darn it.
9) is a podcast, which is an interview.
10) is made by Micks, and thus sadly not independent.
11) is paywalled, but the title doesn't sound like it's going to be independent or have significant coverage - maybe I'm wrong?
12) is an interview.
13) and 14) are paywalled and archive.org has decided it doesn't like me any more so I have to guess what these are; if they're lists with a couple of paragraphs about each woman, unfortunately that won't count as significant coverage.
15) is an interview.
and lucky number 16) is also an interview!
So in summary - and I realise this is probably going to be a depressing summary, I'm sorry - you might have one reliable source, the paywalled #11. My instinct is that it's too soon for an article on Micks, and you might need to wait until she's got some more notability out there. That being said, as long as you edit the draft at least once every six months, it will be preserved and you can keep working on it until there's reliable sources coming out of your ears!
I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it would suck to let you keep trying to fix it and wasting your time (and the reviewers' time) when the outcome isn't going to change until more good sources are written. In the meantime, you could have a look through some Featured Articles on musicians (the best on Wikipedia) to get an idea of what you're trying to find. And again, feel free to come to my talk page whenever! Good luck and happy editing :) StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 26 June 2024 review of submission by MuseumOfSilence

Could someone please review this entry which has been waiting review for over 3 months?

The article submission has not been reviewed after correcting it completely.

Thanks for your help,

Museum Of Silence MuseumOfSilence (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MuseumOfSilence: This reads more like a curriculum vitae. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:37, 26 June 2024 review of submission by 2407:D000:B:32C1:5854:24A:AF52:88E8

where do i write the text 2407:D000:B:32C1:5854:24A:AF52:88E8 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You write the text in the draft, and pick "publish" (which means "save", but was changed for legal reasons, to remind editors that everything in Wikipedia is public).
Make sure you don't write your draft BACKWARDS, because that will waste your time and other people's.
Also consider whether you are duplicating information in Flora of Pakistan, or adding information which does not justify a separate article but should be added to that article. ColinFine (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Rainbowdoor

I tried carefully to avoid promotional language and I don't see this article as substantially different in regards to promotional language to similar articles for actuarial organisations such as Society of Actuaries and Institute and Faculty of Actuaries which have been accepted, but clearly I don't understand. So, I would appreciate your advice on specific words/phrases/sentences or the overall approach that are considered promotional and what changes I might make. Actuaries Institute is a major professional organisation in Australia and, in my opinion, deserves a Wikipedia entry. Your assistance to create an entry which meets Wikipedia guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Rainbowdoor (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rainbowdoor: Society of Actuaries (first edit Oct 08, 2003) and Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (first edit Aug 02, 2010) both predate the drafting process entirely and were never formally reviewed or accepted. We don't cite government sources (gov't document) and cites to the subject themselves are useless for notability (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rainbowdoor. Your draft reads as what the Institue wants people to know about itself. (And this impression is backed up by most of the references being either closely associated with the institute, or barely mentioning it).
Baldly, Wikipedia isn't interested - at all - in what the Institute wants people to know. What Wikipedia is interested in (almost exclusively) is what people who have no connection with the Institute have chosen to write about it and been published in reliable sources. Almost the whole article should be based on such sources - and if little independent material has been written about the Institute, then it simply won't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I have reason to believe that you have a conflict of interest in writing about the Institute (I am aware that you changed your username, and I suggest you remove the welcome messages from your User Talk page that addressed you by your original username - you are allowed to remove messages from your user talk page, see User talk pages - but the rename is recorded and public).
The COI does not forbid you from working on this draft, but you ought to declare it. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ColinFine. That's very helpful. You are correct that I changed my username some years ago but only because Wikipedia gave advice that usernames should be anonymous. Otherwise, I wouldn't have. I'm happy to declare that I am a Fellow of Institute of Actuaries of Australia but would also like to note that I am a volunteer and have no financial interest in seeing the article published. How do I do that? Rainbowdoor (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainbowdoor: See WP:PAID. (Whether you or paid or volunteering is immaterial; you still stand to gain from writing an article about the organisation, and so must disclose all the same.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree with Jeske here - I think being a Fellow of the institute means you certainly have a COI, but, I would not regard you as coming within WP:PAID, unless you were actively working as part of the institute's admin or governance. But I would still advise disclosure on your user page. ColinFine (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ColinFine @Jéské Couriano Thank you both for your advice. @Jéské Couriano I read your article "A brief history of AfC" with interest. It gave me an appreciation of how much the editing process has changed over time, and that my first article created in 2014 would most likely not be accepted today. On balance, I have decided not to continue with the article, although I would like to be clear, that I would not benefit, personally, professionally or financially from it, other than having contributed an article about an important Australian Institution. Thank you once again. Rainbowdoor (talk) 07:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:26, 26 June 2024 review of submission by Grizly1960

Hello! How can improve this article? Grizly1960 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can improve it by starting again, basing it on independent published sources. Almost nothing published by the centre or by the Ukrainian government is of any relevance for this article.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, supplemented the article with independent sources, and information from such. Grizly1960 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The section Highlighting of activities seems to be pushing an agenda. Qcne (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

00:19:36, 27 June 2024 review of submission by MauriceAgerOfficial

I represent Maurice Ager & we would like to update his wiki

MauriceAgerOfficial (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MauriceAgerOfficial: I think you've come to the wrong help desk, this is for new article drafts undergoing the AfC review process, which Maurice Ager (or for that matter, Sam Froling) isn't.
However, now that you're here, I need to tell you that you have a conflict of interest (COI), which must be disclosed before you do any further editing. I have posted a paid-editing query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Note also that you are not allowed to edit directly articles to which your COI applies, you must instead make edit requests via the article talk page using the {{Edit COI}} template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:09, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Livvin1

This draft has been rejected several times. I made all necessary changes—there are quite literally no other sources I can use. He is a food influencer in which the only information I will get is from previous interviews and reliable sources (podcasts, The New York Times, Forbes etc.). All sources I've used are credible. I've seen all of these used in other wiki pages for celebs as well, so I'm not really sure why this is continually rejected. I'd really appreciate any specific help that will get this pushed through. Livvin1 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Livvin1: firstly, this draft hasn't been rejected (which would mean the end of the road), only declined (which means you can resubmit, once you've addressed the decline reasons).
Secondly, what other articles may exist, and how they may be sourced, is not the point: we are assessing this draft, and that is done by reference to the currently applicable guidelines and policies, not by comparing to other articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
You say "interviews and reliable sources (podcasts, The New York Times, Forbes etc.)." Interviews are not independent (or usually reliable), as they are the subject talking. Podcasts aren't much better. Forbes may be reliable, but usually isn't; see WP:FORBESCON. It seems that there is something of a gap between what you consider to be an acceptable source for the purposes of establishing notability, and what three experienced reviewers (with 300,000+ edits under their collective belt) think. As it is, I'm minded to side with the latter, but note that I haven't done a proper source analysis.
If, as you say, there aren't better sources available, then it probably isn't possible to have this published. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:41, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Virgilio lauro

Hello, good evening. How are you? I want to thank you in advance for your time and advice.

The reason for my message is to ask about the article I am creating about the musical artist Michael Q. Trucks.

I have already made several modifications to the draft and removed all the self-references that you kindly pointed out to me. I also revised the US NAVY honors, as I suppose they have no place in a musician's profile. Additionally, I adjusted the tone of the article to be more neutral and used references from reliable sources to avoid a lack of credibility.

Could you please review if all the information and additions are correct?

I am very interested in following all the guidelines to comply with your standards.

Thank you very much once again.

Virgilio Virgilio lauro (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Virgilio lauro: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk. However, having taken a quick look at your draft, the previous decline reasons are still there: it present no evidence that the subject is notable, and the whole thing is written in a promotional manner. Additionally, the referencing is wholly inadequate, eg. the entire 'Early life and education' section is unreferenced, and much of what is referenced is done so using unreliable sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I get it. Thank you very much for your comments. They really help me to include the necessary information to make it relevant for the platform. I appreciate your time and considerations.
Best, Virgilio Virgilio lauro (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:08, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Sumanrsb2

This article which I have published is related to one of the popular Indian youtube and a contestor of popular OTT Show broadcasted on JIO Cinema named Bigg Boss. Allmost all the contestor have a Wikipedia page. kindly help in publishing it or help me in improving it. Allmost 100 relevant news article available on internet regarding this. Sumanrsb2 (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sumanrsb2: Any reality show contestants - including and especially contestants on Big Brother and its variants (of which Bigg Boss is one) - need to be found notable independent of their reality show appearances due to them being designed to distort or exaggerate players' personality flaws for drama. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please define what notable means to you. having coverage in more than 50 relevant news article is not a criteria of notability ? Being contestor of a Popular OTT show is not a crtiteria for notability ? If you need I can cite all those news article related to this Sumanrsb2 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: the general notability guideline is given at WP:GNG, please study it carefully. That is the one that reviewers usually work to (unless there is a special guideline that applies instead).
And yes, "having coverage in more than 50 relevant news article" may prove notability, but it depends on more than just the number of sources; their quality matters just as much, as the GNG guideline makes clear. Besides, your draft does not cite 50 or 100 articles, it cites four sources (of varying quality) in total. Our job is not to go hunting for sources, that is entirely the responsibility of the draft authors and proponents; we merely review what is cited in the draft.
Having said which, please do not cite 50 or 100 articles, as that would be pure WP:REFBOMBING and as such counterproductive. Find the best 3-5 sources (per the GNG criteria), and summarise their coverage. That gives you both the appropriate content and the necessary proof of notability in one go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done the same despite you guys nominated for deletion. Its worth for Wikipedia. Kindly approve Sumanrsb2 (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: you're only making matters worse by creating multiple versions of this. The published article has been nominated for deletion, and rightly so. Your draft will not be approved while there is no evidence of notability, and certainly not if you don't actually submit it for review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumanrsb2: Your only sources are a YouTube channel (no editorial oversight) and three news stories about his appearance on a Bigg Boss season. The sourcing on the version I looked at yesterday had seven Bigg Boss-focussed sources. As I said above, you need to show he is notable outside of the reality show. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being a popular Youtuber wh recently in news for Bigg Boss sensation why can't be treated as a notable personality ? There are thousand of Wiki article having no reliable coverage Sumanrsb2 (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't give you licence to make another one. As as I've explained before, the reason we need sources that discuss them outside of the context of the reality show is because reality television is designed to exaggerate and distort peoples' actual personalities and actions to stir up drama and create a narrative; the "reality show" version of a person is effectively no different from a character in a scripted drama and should not be considered representative of how that person is off-camera. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 27 June 2024 review of submission by KBN College(Autonomous)

I have given general information about college in vijayawada but you are saying it seems like advertising , i have been added courses they offer , infrastructure , land area etc... i think it is an information about the college

please guide if anything wrong in my page post KBN College(Autonomous) (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(User blocked, draft G11'd.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:21, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Caspal

goodmorning, I've translated the dutch article form the Chassé Theater in Breda. the original had no references at all so when my translation was moved to draft I added different (dutch) references. now I also found some English. I have no idea what the criteria for wiki references are . the explanation in the draft description is 'to English' for me and I don't understand them. How can I summit the article about this theater to wiki. Caspal (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caspal: WP:THREE gives a good rule of thumb. Note that we accept non-English sources, offline sources, and offline non-English sources, so where and in what language the source is written is irrelevant. What matters is that the sources are independent of the subject and its surrogates, discuss the subject at length, and have strong editorial oversight with competent fact-checking processes. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Caspal: yes, I rather suspected it may have been a translation. You need to attribute the original article as the source, see WP:HOWTRANS.
For future reference, please bear in mind that the English-language Wikipedia has higher standards for referencing and notability than most if not all other language versions. It often happens that the sources cited in the original article are insufficient for publication here. For that reason, I would recommend that before even starting to translate, you check whether the sources meet our requirements, and if not, whether you can find more and better sources. If you cannot, then there is no point in proceeding further, as you are likely to be wasting your time and effort. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Roggenrol

Can you review my draft, please? I don't get what's wrong with it exactly. Roggenrol (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Roggenrol: the draft was reviewed, and consequently declined, for lack of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:17, 27 June 2024 review of submission by STContributor

Hello,

I recently saw my submitted draft, Steptoe & Johnson, was declined and the Wikipedia article, "Steptoe LLP" was noted as the subject already existing. Steptoe & Johnson is a separate firm/entity from Steptoe LLP (even though part of their name is shared) which is why I thought the article would be helpful to distinguish the two law firms.

Can you let me know how I can make this more clear so that the article submission can be reconsidered for publication? STContributor (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can't. Because you are trying to create a duplicate of Steptoe LLP. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 27 June 2024 review of submission by DhruvvMehra

Dear Wikipedia Administrator,

I am writing to contest the speedy deletion tag placed on Draft Mindz. I believe the concerns raised under section G11 regarding promotional content can be addressed through necessary revisions to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Specifically, I have edited the draft to focus on encyclopedic information about Designer Mindz, highlighting its history, services, and notable achievements in a neutral tone. The revisions aim to provide verifiable and sourced content that adheres to Wikipedia's standards.

I kindly request a review of the updated draft to reconsider its deletion. I am committed to ensuring that the page meets Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and notability.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, DhruvvMehra DhruvvMehra (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DhruvvMehra It's pure spam and will shortly be deleted. Qcne (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DhruvvMehra: you have been warned already against trying to use Wikipedia to promote your business. You're getting close to being blocked. You also haven't made the required paid-editing disclosure (that I can find, at least); please make that as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 27 June 2024 review of submission by SandyTee

what does "one of the sources is a 404" mean? SandyTee (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyTee: HTTP 404 = page/file not found. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:44, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Taevchoi

Article was rejected, but I would like to argue that T-Money is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article and I urge you to reconsider. Looking at the discussion in the articles for deletion for the page that was live in 2016, I can tell that a huge concern was the absence of reliable sources. Furthermore, user Innisfree987 was trying to get in contact with the editor to help improve the page before it was deleted, but it seems they were not able to get in contact. I'd like to quote user Innisfree987, "Certainly if editor or others come back to work on it and can provide more sources, then great. Working with Dr. Dre and MTV on hiphop in the '80s is potentially a very important piece of music history; we just need the WP account of it to meet verifiability standards." I agree that the original Wikipedia article for T-Money was poorly written by a first time Wikipedia editor. As a first time editor myself, I initially thought all the article needed was more sources. Through the feedback of my peers, such as user Utopes and those at Teahouse, I realized the cadence and the integrity of the sources needed work as well. I also agree that T-Money's contribution to 80s hip-hop is rather significant to hip-hop history as a whole, especially since Original Concept was an early group signed to Def Jam. And outside of his group, he made a name for himself through hosting Yo! MTV Raps. I believe that T-Money qualifies for his own article because he meets numbers 1 and 10 of the guidelines. He is an important piece of Hip-Hop history, more specifically New York, which is the birthplace of hiphop. The sources I included in my draft are much stronger and more credible than the sources that were included in the 2016 draft. I am eager to hear your thoughts and consideration. Taevchoi (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I have been working with the Teahouse members diligently for months regarding this draft, and no one ever voiced or had concerns that the draft would be rejected all together. More specifically, User Utopes was hopeful that my draft would be approved due to my improvements in the edits. The feedback I received was heavily about writing in an encyclopedic tone, which I am still learning to grasp. Thanks! Taevchoi (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Taevchoi: sorry to hear you feel (I think?) like you've been mislead. The Teahouse crowd were probably trying to encourage and guide you, but as they (many of them, at least) don't do the actual reviewing, they don't necessarily look at drafts with the same critical eye and go into the same detail as AfC reviewers do. Also, they can't foresee the future, and what a draft eventually turns into.
If you wish to appeal against the rejection, you need to approach the rejecting reviewer directly. Just be sure to build your case on policy-based arguments, pointing out clearly which notability criteria your draft meets, and what evidence supports that.
You do also have the option, given that your account is autoconfirmed, of moving the draft into the mainspace yourself, as the AfC process is in most cases voluntary. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that you do that, because there was no doubt a good reason why the draft was rejected, but it is technically an option nevertheless. Just be aware that if New Page Patrol sends the article back to drafts, or worse moves to delete it, this will make it that much more difficult to have an article on this subject accepted in the future. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, @DoubleGrazing! Appreciate your help! Taevchoi (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:02, 27 June 2024 review of submission by Seandavidfebre

Wikipedia Support Team,

I am writing to seek guidance on publishing a new Wikipedia page for Sean Febre, an entrepreneur and podcaster known for co-founding Febre Frameworks and co-hosting the Happy Hour Holidaze podcast.

I have drafted the article and gathered reliable sources, but I want to ensure it meets Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines. Could you please provide advice on the best steps to take to get this page published?

Thank you for your assistance. Seandavidfebre (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seandavidfebre: Aside from this being (almost certainly) an autobiography, anything the subject writes, says, films, commissions, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability and for biographical claims. Your "sources" are links to the homepages for his firm and his podcast. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gave 'm my incredibly helpful deletion notice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:09, 27 June 2024 review of submission by SkibidiFarage

why SkibidiFarage (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SkibidiFarage: Because we don't have articles on random one-off meme mutations unless they've been reported on by multiple other outlets. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok SkibidiFarage (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 27 June 2024 review of submission by TheElectricEclectic

This is a notable creative artist from The Netherlands in both music and digital communications. TheElectricEclectic (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheElectricEclectic: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and is awaiting deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

05:59, 28 June 2024 review of submission by Arahi991

Dear moderator added official sources from the company Can you help. Thank you Arahi991 (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arahi991: as I told you already yesterday, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
I also asked you if you have a connection with Solyankich, who created Draft:Del Mar Energy, but you've not answered that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Official sources from the company" are completely irrelevant. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 28 June 2024 review of submission by עומר תשבי

Hey there, This article has been declined, supposably due to lack of Reliable sources. However, Iv'e used highly regarded Israeli press and Forbes. Why was it declined again? can I receive some constructive assistance? עומר תשבי (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@עומר תשבי: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
Discounting the sources tied to a contentious topic, most of your sources barely even discuss Meckenzie, with some not even mentioning him at all. We do not judge sources solely by the outlet that publishes them; we have to actually read them as well and judge them based on what they say and their context. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 28 June 2024 review of submission by RUE4533

Greetings, my article was declined because the reviewer said All music, Discogs, and streaming services are not reliable sources. I used those sites as sources because I saw that other published music articles use them. Is there a more reliable source that I should use instead for music credits? Thank you so much for your time. RUE4533 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RUE4533: it is true that Discogs is not considered reliable, see WP:DISCOGS; it came close to being deprecated a few years ago. AllMusic is better (see WP:ALLMUSIC), but should be used with caution at best. You need to find sources that aren't user-generated, are secondary, and ideally put together by professional staff subject to editorial controls, fact-checking, etc. policies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RUE4533: Credits are something that do not need to be cited if their work is properly credited (reading the credits is enough to verify the claim) but they do not contribute to notability. As to why the reviewer rejected those three outlets in particular, AllMusic is a dodgy source unless you're citing its reviews, Discogs is unusable full stop (no editorial oversight), and streaming services are unusable full stop (connexion to subject or unknown provenance depending on how above-board the service is). For the rest, refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
None of your sources are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the detailed review Jéské. This has been a good learning experience thus far. I had modeled my article off of other music articles and their sources but I can see now the issues with that. Possibly Discogs and Allmusic were more reliable when those articles were approved, but not anymore. Good to know that credits do not need to be cited, when you say "reading the credits is enough to verify the claim", do you mean reading the physical cd liner notes? Or is that unusable because that is being provided by the artist and label (connexion to subject) like streaming service credits. RUE4533 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do indeed mean reading the liner notes. However, being credited for a work doesn't help for notability in most circumstances, as (barring an Alan Smithee credit) being credited for work you've done is par for the course. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Positively. Thanks for taking a butchers and the chinwag. When/if the subject has more in depth coverage I will revisit. Until then, on to other topics RUE4533 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:47, 28 June 2024 review of submission by QiaoYi-Huang

Hello, I've put continuously made effort in sourcing reliable and notable references for a this page. However, my draft was declined upon resubmission. Could you please help me review the page and provide guidance on what specific additions or changes are necessary? Thank you. QiaoYi-Huang (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QiaoYi-Huang There are some terms which fail Wikipedia's Neutrality guideline, with terms like "best" and "aiming". Are you related with this company in some way? TheNuggeteer (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:27, 28 June 2024 review of submission by Jack Tarre

I need assistance with references on this new, short article on performer and disability rights activist Jennifer Kumiyama. Three experienced Wiki editors have done a great job helping by reviewing, editing and moving the article along, but I'm a little stymied now. Of the 14 references in the article, which need upgrading and which meet Wiki standards? Thank you in advance. Please note that on the Wikipedia page for the Disney animated film "Wish" (Jennifer's most recent big screen performance) she is the only one of the eleven actors listed that does not link to a Wikipedia article. This was my initial motivation for creating the article. Jack Tarre (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked two random sources and they didn't support the content that they followed. Please also note that YouTube is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked two more and they also didn't mention her, it is an absolute requirement that the content is supported by the sources, and please note that YouTube and interviews are not suitable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

03:58, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Mashrafi H Antu

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feroze_Ahmed_Swapan Username is not right that's why we have problem to mention on another page. Correct username is 'Feroz Ahammed Shapon' Mashrafi H Antu (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved page from the original to your request. TheNuggeteer (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mashrafi H Antu see WP:MV for instructions on how to 'rename' a page by moving it. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:13, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Zainashrafofficial

How can I write data about Zain Ashraf Official that will be publicly available to the community on Wikipedia and also should be available in search. Zainashrafofficial (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zainashrafofficial: you should not write about yourself, and you also should not try to use Wikipedia to promote anything or anyone. Try somewhere like LinkedIn instead.
This draft has been rejected and is awaiting speedy deletion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Kastark

Hello! I've been referred to the help desk by User:SafariScribe who recently reviewed my submission. SafariScribe declined the submission without comment beyond the pro forma, and when I asked for clarity on their reasons on their talk page they were unwilling to explain further beyond stating that some sources were unreliable, and instead referred me here. Could anyone provide me some further insight on why the article failed to meet WP:RS? As I understand the policies, the article should now meet the criteria by including multiple reliable sources (in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent). I want to engage in the AfC process in good faith but without any meaningful explanation as to why the reviewer disagreed, I'm left unsure what the issue is and how to fix it. Kastark (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the draft seems to be about promoting the non notable game Lancer? Theroadislong (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(comment from involved editor) Hi @Kastark, your draft was declined because it lacks reliable sources to meet notability. It is not about having many sources in a particular article, it is having reliable and verifiable citations to support what you wrote. For example, a national newspaper, broadcasting channels, etc. Most of your sources are blogs which I showed you on my talk page. Please do not assert "unwilling" because I provided you all that you needed. Maintain civility. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm remaining civil here - when I said unwilling, it was because you said you didn't want to discuss it further and sent me here. I am very legitimately confused by your decision and I'm trying to understand what you mean - I think there are sufficient reliable sources to meet the policy criteria. As I understand it, the policy is inclusive rather than exclusive, so simply finding one or two sources you think are unreliable isn't a good reason to decline the submission (particularly since some of the examples you brought up are actually notable news sources in the industry). In 20 years of editing Wikipedia this is my first time creating an article, so I'm very willing to accept that I might be wrong and regular AfC users might know better, but if that's the case I'd really appreciate an explanation as to what the issue is so I can understand the process better. Kastark (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have had an account here for about one month and your only edits have been to promote your own business, paid editors will always be held to a high standard. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have declared my COI and followed all appropriate policies, I'm very aware of wikipedia's justified skepticism but I don't think that's a reason to decline the article (in fact users with COIs are specifically instructed to use the AfC process). For reference and in full disclosure, this is not my business but I have worked with them on contract. Kastark (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 20 years of editing Wikipedia this is my first time creating an article is a good stat. So, what's your previous account? I also believe Theroadislong is "absolutely" correct. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SafariScribe, as you know Wikipedia has always been welcoming of IP editors and I've never seen the reason to create an account until it was literally required to do so. I feel like I'm being attacked here without good reason and I'd like to ask folks to take a moment before accusing me of acting in bad faith. Kastark (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, is there anyone available who can answer my questions about policy and reliable sources? Specifically, have I misunderstood how WP:RS is supposed to work, and is there a reason that multiple articles from reputable news outlets aren't enough to establish notability? I would still like to improve the article and after the discussion above I've gone back to re-read WP:CS, WP:RS and WP:CORPDEPTH, but it's still unclear to me what the actual roadblock here is. I would greatly appreciate anyone taking the time to explain this to me. Kastark (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a single reliable independent source in the draft

1 is a primary source, 2 is a blog (not reliable) 3 is about Lancer not Massif Press, 4 is a commercial link to purchase Lancer, 5 is about Lancer, 6 is about Lancer, 7 content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. 8 doesn’t mention Massif Press, 9 is about Lancer, 10 is an interview with publisher of Lancer so not independent, 11 is about Lancer, 12 is about Lancer, 13 is about Lancer, 14 is their own website so not independent, 15 passing mention, 16 unreliable, 17 topic not mentioned, 18 forum, not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to go through each of the sources and provide a breakdown, this is illustrative. By the way you've summarised these am I right to think that the issue is that the sources establish the notability of the game rather than the publisher? And would it therefore make sense to refactor the article to be about Lancer itself rather than Massif Press? Kastark (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a possibility. Theroadislong (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! Thank you once again :) Kastark (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:23, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Anskrev

What sources are problematic and caused rejection of submission? Anskrev (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anskrev, your draft was declined and not rejected, meaning there is still room for improvement. The sources must be about the company and not it's founder. Also, your draft was written in a promotional tone that the sources doesn't credibly show the company's importance. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do suggest merge and redirect to Donnel Baird. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Thanks for the feedback. My aim is to create a BlocPower page independent of the founder and then scale back the BlocPower content on the Donnel Baird page. I've edited the page and re-submitted for review. Anskrev (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your submission is declined again. You are not trying to understand the notability criteria of an organisation. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Twinkle1990, I have further removed Donnel Baird focused sources, other than the citations that Donnel Baird launched the company. Anskrev (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, someone will review it. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev no Declined with reasons given. Please do the work before resubmitting. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional secondary sources and attempted to remove promotional sounded content and re-submitted. Hopefully I understood the issues correctly. Anskrev (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anskrev I have left a comment on the draft wth respect to the references you have chosen. I will not re-review it. Why are you in such haste? Work slower, and better, please.
We need references meeting these tough criteria:
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.
There is a great deal of work to do. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:53, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Mckenziedavid011

I don't know what im supposed to do by a simple article Mckenziedavid011 (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to demonstrate that the subject "Teams with the most championshipts in NA Sports" has had enough published about it to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. You should also cite sources for all the numbers. ColinFine (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:34, 29 June 2024 review of submission by 80.7.88.94

It’s a horror story it Hass to be good and juicy 80.7.88.94 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopaedia, not a website for creative writing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Google Fonts was a reliable source!

It was sourced in Product Sans! 2600:1016:A102:27A9:503A:59DE:C4D:4443 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In order to establish notability, a source must be independent of the topic and devote significant coverage to the topic, as well as being reliable. In addition, references to multiple high quality sources are required. Cullen328 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In striking contrast to Product Sans, your Draft:Yarndings is only a single sentence, and your single reference is to a source that is not independent and does not devote significant coverage to the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. Next time I will have reliable sources. 96.83.255.53 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exact same person. 96.83.255.53 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 29 June 2024 review of submission by 220.255.242.109

Please see comments on the article. Thanks you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, which means that it will not be considered further, and there is no point in appealing here. The only possible way of continuing with it is for you to appeal directly to the reviewer that rejected it, Zoglophie, and convincing them that something has changed to make it worth considering again. ColinFine (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:57, 29 June 2024 review of submission by Clare Nassanga

Hello I request advice on how i can make the article better. Clare Nassanga (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through the need of general nobility of biography of people. Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

01:27, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Deven Reddy10

I created a wiki page for an Indian National highway called "National Highway 930P". But I named the page as Dev Reddy instead of "National Highway 930P". I think publishing of the page got rejected due to that error. Now I want to republish the same page by changing the title name as ""National Highway 930P" instead of "Dev Reddy" could someone help me on this ? Thank you Deven Reddy10 (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Deven Reddy10. The current title of a draft has no impact on its review. AFC reviewers know how to give an accepted article its proper title. Draft:Dev Reddy has not been rejected. It has been declined instead, which is a very different thing. So, forget about the current name of the draft and instead focus on improving the draft as recommended by the reviewers. Pay close attention to their comments. Cullen328 (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:35, 30 June 2024 review of submission by WikiPhil012

I cannot resubmit my draft. 

WikiPhil012 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, WikiPhil012. Your draft has been resubmitted but is unlikely to be accepted. It is very poorly referenced and needs major improvement. Cullen328 (talk) 03:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:09, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Quote Veteran

It says to be qualified there needs to be multiple published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent, though my submission was denied. But the reviewer said The Hill and NYT, which is multiple, so I'm confused. Quote Veteran (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quote Veteran: we normally require three such sources; hence why the reviewer said this is "close to showing notability". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: I have added another profile from Delaware Today. There was also a well-done profile from the Post. It says you are a new page reviewer, would you mind reviewing it? Thanks in advance. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:04, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Jasonkumarlopchan

Hello, I have posted all the reference articles that covered the news about our film. But my submission is being denied. Please help ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasonkumarlopchan: there isn't much we can do to help. If you don't have evidence that the film is notable, then this draft cannot be accepted.
You have been asked twice already to disclose your conflict of interest. Please do so as your very next edit. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what kind of evidence are we talking about ? Could you help me please ? I have already listed out media articles related to the movie as well as the IMDB page of the movie. Help please ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: the kind of evidence which is described in the decline notice, that has now been posted three times on top of the draft. Have you read any of it? We're looking for something to show that the film satisfies either the WP:NFILM or WP:GNG guidelines. Your draft cites precisely three sources: IMDB, which is completely useless, and two pre-release publicity pieces; none of these contribute anything towards notability.
And one more time: please disclose your conflict of interest now, I'd rather not have to ask again. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh Okay. I'm a media journalist here in Nepal and I came upon a screening of this movie and I quite loved it. The movie was really grounded as one can tell they're a massive independent makers. The movie is also the first ever Nepali movie to be shot entirely on Iphone. So, its kind of an achievement for our Nepali Cinema landscape. My only interest is to provide information about this movie to the people out there and help it reach world wide audiences as well. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: are you trying to say you have no connection to this film? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do. But I'm doing this on my own. Not under their influence or for some financial gain. I'm just doing it for the love of movies and to expand the landscape of our Nepali cinema. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: "I do" what – you do have a connection to this film? Like, might you be the Jason Lopchan that the draft says wrote, directed and edited this film? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've tried wikipedia. I opened this account and tried to write out about the movie just to help out the team and the movie. I told you I'm a local media journalist in Nepal. You might think I'm doing it financial gain but no it's simply just as I told you above. These guys are new in the film making line of Nepal. I just want to help them grow. I provided you with information regarding media articles, I know you said they are pre release publicity pieces but the movie hasn't releases so what am I supposed to provide you ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: I still don't know what your relationship with this subject is. Maybe someone else can better interpret your evasive comments and get to the bottom of this.
If you don't have evidence that the film is notable, then it's probably not notable. That's pretty much the long and the short of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are film-makers and I'm a media personnel. That's the relationship. And I have been asking you the same question, what evidence should I provide you ? Can you be specific ? cause it looks like to me that you want it to be not notable. Everyone here in Nepal knows about the movie and I'm only trying to get in on wiki hoping people outside notice as well. What exact evidence should I provide about a movie that hasn't been released yet ? Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: "Hasn't been released yet" is the start and end of your problems. Unless there's something wildly unusual about the production (i.e. deaths or legal issues) it's highly unlikely a film that hasn't been released yet gets an article simply because the sources that would be available are all the usual personnel and marketeering crap that every movie and their set dog gets. You're better off waiting until the film releases and gets professional reviews; we can cite those to build an article. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator by design, and our readers both understand this and get torqued off when an article seems to be trying to advertize to them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Thank you for your explanation. This is the explanation I was hoping to get from @DoubleGrazing. I have already gone through the guidelines but I was having trouble which is why I came to help desk. I was hoping to get it clear instead of referring me to the notability guidelines link. Anyways, hope you do better job at helping others than you did to me. Be clear and help others instead of trying to sound cocky. Thank you @Jéské Couriano again for your reply and helping out. Jasonkumarlopchan (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jasonkumarlopchan It's hard to judge tone from text on a screen. Trying to sound clear and consise is easy to confuse with cockiness. Please assume people are trying to help you. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that your experience is very common for new editors of Wikipedia who attempt the challenging task of creating a new article before they have spent time learning the necessary skills. Writing for an encyclopaedia is very different from journalism.
I always advise new editors to not even think about creating a new article until they have spent a few weeks or months improving existing articles, and learning about how Wikipedia works. Once they have an understanding of fundamental concepts such as verifiability, reliable sources, independent sources, neutral point of view, and notability, then is the time to read your first article carefully, and try creating an article. If they try before that, they are likely to have the same frustrating experience as you are having. ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasonkumarlopchan: I have already explained that you need to show evidence that the film meets either of the relevant notability guidelines, WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Consistently throughout this process these have been pointed out to you, and yet you're still here asking what sort of evidence is needed. You will need to read and understand these guidelines yourself, I cannot understand them for you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:55, 30 June 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:2540:B700:B9AD:9FE8:29D7:50EA

Hi there, my draft was denied in March. I have corrected the external links but it hasn't been reviewed. Help please 2600:1700:2540:B700:B9AD:9FE8:29D7:50EA (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still have significant portions of uncited text. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined with rationale. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A big part of the exhibitions of this artist do not have an online source that can be cited because they took place when there very little or none online presence. I removed the ones that I couldn't cite however there are many more that I could cite with reliable sources. Please reconsider. 2600:1700:2540:B700:F594:3704:3F9B:D72E (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We accept offline sources, if cited with enough information to look them up in a library or offline archive.
  • For magazines or newspapers we use {{cite magazine}}/{{cite news}} and require the outlet name, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1924), the article title, the article byline, and the page(s) the article is on;
  • For books we use {{cite book}} and require the title, author, year of publication, publisher, page(s) being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.
—Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look at this huge list of exhibitions. Does it add value to the artist's notability or is it just a large list. Generally we select the most significant, where the reference is about the artist. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we have a strong preference for independent sources. If the only published material you can find about a particular exhibition comes from the artist, or the gallery, so no independent commentator has noted it, then Wikipedia is probably not interested in that exhibition either. ColinFine (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:44, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Tscharschmidt

I would be grateful for help addressing the question of adequate references. It would be helpful to have specific examples of the deficiencies. For the revised March 2024 version, I added references documenting Granoff’s contributions from primary, secondary and tertiary sources, including textbooks, peer-reviewed scientific articles and review articles in scientific journals; also PDF downloaded from websites of International organizations such as the American Society of Microbiology and Medical Schools. Thanks very much Tscharschmidt (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tscharschmidt I view the subject's notability as proven. I am about to accept this draft. Improvements may be made later. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tscharschmidt Accepted. Please try to allow the community to edit this to its hearts content. We father articles, we do not mother them. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Elise9876

Hi Help Desk! Hope you are well. I am working on a Wikipedia entry on the late activist, organizer, and editor Joan Gibbs. Gibbs received obituaries in New York's Amsterdam News and Gay City News and the national publications Gay USA and thebody.com, an HIV/AIDS publication. Her work has been documented by several academics. I would be grateful for any advice about what additional kind of articles or coverage would prove notability. Thanks! Best, Elise Harris Elise9876 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elise9876 put simply:
For a living or recently deceased 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.
Your objective may surprise you. It is simply to show that Gibbs passes WP:BIO for acceptance. Embellishments may come later 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will work on locating more secondary sources that are recognized by Wikipedia. Elise9876 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:32, 30 June 2024 review of submission by Quote Veteran

I'm here again sorry because I don't get why this was declined. DoubleGrazing said three good sources are usually necessary for approval, and yet this article with multiple sources on a well-known historical foundation was rejected. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quote Veteran I would like to hear from @SafariScribe who declined it, since I view it as a potentially valid stub article. I don't want to jump I and accept it because I value their opinion. As reviewers we are entitled to have different opinions; we are human, after all. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well another person noted that an independent source was needed for a claim, so I've added two sources for that. NYT is surely go-to. Quote Veteran (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran I suggest you resubmit it since you have added material 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done so, shall I resubmit my article on the BB Foundation? Quote Veteran (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Quote Veteran Accepted. I have no comment to make on the BB Foundation, save that you should use mature judgement. I have not examined it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Timtrent. I was about doing that but found out it has been moved. @Quote Veteran, thanks for your contributions too. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe I didn't wish to pre-empt you, but the additions were compelling. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. That's not a problem. Once more, I appreciate the help. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 22:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 30 June 2024 review of submission by 2605:59C8:302E:4910:81CE:1536:5AC6:28C7

How can I find better sources for this? 2605:59C8:302E:4910:81CE:1536:5AC6:28C7 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

00:10, 1 July 2024 review of submission by HisotricalHoundofHistory

The sources I did were completely wrong, No AI generation; just I have no clue how to use this site, I don't think. This is a pretty niche part of history and I can point you into the direction of the correct sources that are reliable and credible. Just need help, thank you. HisotricalHoundofHistory (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HisotricalHoundofHistory: If the sources were wrong, where did you get the information from? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:01, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Jeremias2545

Hello, in my article I have included a couple of references of which the first two are not considered independent and therefore do not contribute to the notability. My question is: Should I delete these references and leave only the correct one? Since they are the only references I have. Thank you. Jeremias2545 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeremias2545: sources can do two things, they can establish notability, and/or they can verify information in the article. Even if a source doesn't contribute towards the former, it can still be needed for the latter. So only remove a source if it does neither (in which case, it shouldn't really be there in the first place).
In this draft, all three sources are there just to support the statements that this person has appeared in the media. I struggle somewhat to see the point of such statements, and therefore the usefulness of these sources, at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:20, 1 July 2024 review of submission by Fatima Mukarrama

I want to know that what are errors found in my article and how can it be eridicated in order to get published?? Fatima Mukarrama (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fatima Mukarrama: we don't know where this information is coming from. You list some possible sources at the end and call them 'references', but they're not referred to anywhere. Please see WP:REFB for advice on the preferred referencing method of inline citations and footnotes. Also, use the {{cite news}} and/or {{cite web}} templates, to ensure that the results are correctly formatted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:48, 1 July 2024 review of submission by GJamesT

I wrote a Wikipedia post about Savic Motorcycles which is about to launch in Australia but it was rejected in a few minutes saying it is not notable enough. What do I do now as I think it is definitely interesting. 

GJamesT (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GJamesT: It was rejected because it's written as an investor-fishing piece and 60% of its sources are Wikipedia articles. (If you're trying to link to another Wikipedia page, [[square brackets]] will do that.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Table of Contents