Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DoubleGrazing (talk | contribs) at 07:05, 26 December 2024 (→06:11, 26 December 2024 review of submission by 117.254.37.23: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


December 19

01:26, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Uryder23

I’m not sure if this comment belongs on the draft page or the help desk, so I’m starting with the latter.

In trying to understand the rejection of my article on Fanny Breeze, I read the Wikipedia article on reliable sources. Based on my understanding, References 1 and 5 should pass the test, with the sources being the Orange County Register of Deeds, the NC State Park Division, both of these understood to be reliable government agencies. Reference 6 comes from the Eno River Association, a local but trusted conservation organization.

Beverly Scarlett’s role here is as a descendant of the subject, but she has also served as a District Attorney and District Court Judge in Orange County, so I would expect that would move the needle closer to being a reliable source, so that perhaps we can add References 2 and 3 to the list of reliable sources. If it helps, I can try to vet the credentials of local educators Dave Cook and Joe Liles, the narrators from Reference 4.

My desire here is to provide some visibility about an individual who made a difference to thousands of people. It’s not easy to find high quality sources for a person who was born almost 200 years ago, so I’ve offered those that I can find.

Please let me know if there is some way to modify the article so that it might be accepted.

Thanks, Tom 

Uryder23 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uryder23: the first thing that strikes me is that half the paragraphs (some very short, admittedly, but still) are unreferenced. So even if your sources were all undeniably reliable, the draft would fail the test of not adequately supported by reliable sources.
Source 1 may well be reliable, but it isn't a published source (by the looks of it, at least). Source 5 appears to be just a photo; it is probably "reliable", but only serves to support a tiny factoid in the draft.
The bigger problem (than sources being reliable or not) is that they are all primary, apart from #2 possibly, and as such unable to establish notability. That's what I would have declined this draft for myself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing @ColinFine For both of you - thanks for the clarification. I'm understanding more about why don't have what we need for this page. I'm disappointed, but your explanations will help me explain to the other folks on the team why we can't meet the standards. Uryder23 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Uryder23. To enlarge on DoubleGrazing's reply: the decline notice focuses on reliable sources. This is the most important criteria, but there are two others which are nearly as important: independence from the subject - very little which is written, published, commission, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates, can be cited; and significant coverage - a source which only mentions the subject in passing is of little use, and one which does not mention the subject is almost always irrelevant. Please see WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:32, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

i add citation sources Sunuraju (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunuraju: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:43, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:201:8300:1E90:818:6429:A45D:9699

what was wrong with the article? any suggestions? 

2601:201:8300:1E90:818:6429:A45D:9699 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not written in an encyclopedic fashion, it's full of MOS:PUFFERY, basically every fact is unsourced, and there's nothing presented that suggests the subject is notable. Even if this were a notable basketball player, the article would need to be completely rewritten; it has very little actually about the subject. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:11, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Tapiro Maccu

Hi, The page I wrote about Radio Dublino (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Radio_Dublino) was rejected for lack of sources. I removed the weak sources and added many more reliable sources. I have been waiting for another review since June. Do you know what I can do? Would it make sense to add more sources? I already have 11 references for a very short page. Tapiro Maccu (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapiro Maccu: just for the record, this draft was declined in June, but only resubmitted on Nov 19th, so you've been only waiting for another review for exactly one month. And no, there is no way to expedite this process, as we have 1,800+ pending drafts to review, and they are not reviewed in any particular order. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reply and the clarification. My question was about the sources. Should i add more sources or maybe is better reduce them and leave just the 4 / 5 more independent reliable sources? Tapiro Maccu (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of citing a source is to give the reader a means to verify some information in the article. If a source performs that function on its own, leave the citation in. If it verifies information verified by another source, consider removing one of them. If it does not verify a piece of information in the article, remove it. And if it is a non-independent source whose only function in the article is to verify the existence of something (eg an artistic work) consider whether that work ought to be mentioned in the article at all. ColinFine (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:11, 19 December 2024 review of submission by AUZOKA12

I am seeking support for the publication of a school project in the Sandbox. I think my references are not linked to the articles as I pasted them from my original 'WORD' file. I have attempted uploading for comments but have not been successful. I need help with properly citing my references. AUZOKA12 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Referencing for beginners, but it appears you are writing an essay, not an encyclopedia article. If your teacher has asked you to do this, they are incorrect to do so for several reasons and have put you in a difficult position. Your teacher should refer to the Wikipedia Education Program materials to learn how they can design lessons that don't involve requiring students to create a Wikipedia article or get a draft approved. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:25, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Blahblahahaha

I'm not able to find the yellow box saying "Review waiting, please be patient. Kindly help! Blahblahahaha (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blahblahahaha Don't use the whole url in the headers on this page, just the full title(the whole url isn't really needed anywhere). Try submitting it now; the template used doesn't exist(I think). I put the correct one. 331dot (talk) 13:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:53, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Olipre

Hello, I've translated an article on Romain Tranchart that I wrote for the French wikipedia. However, I can't integrate the authority notices and I understand that this is why my English article is rejected. Can you help me solve this problem? Olipre (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you have not shown that this man meets the special definition of notability that we have here on the English Wikipedia(a notable musician, a notable creative professional, or more generally a notable person). The French Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies; what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Olipre: As a translation, you need to declare this for proper attribution. I've left a notice on your talk page. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 82.222.127.225

why it is draft?? 82.222.127.225 (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on what you are asking, but the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. It is completely unsourced and does not show how this young man is a notable musician as Wikipedia defines one. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:46, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Alexeyperlov

If the article is denied again, can I remove the old denial message? Alexeyperlov (Complain) 18:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is, the previous message for the denial on 7 December. Alexeyperlov (Complain) 18:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declines must remain as long as the draft remains a draft. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 19 December 2024 review of submission by 2601:541:0:7A0:3DF5:4D12:134A:48F4

Please approve this listing. You can check that Gloria Sabra is a musician, as her music is available in multiple platforms streaming songs. Thank you! 2601:541:0:7A0:3DF5:4D12:134A:48F4 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. That's why the draft was rejected. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:40, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sapr1930

Hi there, I was just wondering why the sources I provided were not considered independent, reliable, or published. Also, what information should be removed in order for this not to read like an advertisement? I am unaffiliated with the organization, but think this page would be useful to those interested in conservation. Please advise, I believe this information to include only straightforward facts that I found about the company in published sources online and nothing that is promotional. Sapr1930 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sapr1930 The main issue and the first point of the declination reasoning on the draft specifies rather that the issue is the submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. The reason for including an article on Wikipedia is irrelevant to its creation. We are instead focused only on things that are WP:Notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hELLO, @Sapr1930. The trouble is that none of the sources you cite are independent of OneCanopy. (It is possible that the BizWest one is - it's behind a paywall, so I can't see it) but I doubt it. 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. An article that says what the subject wants to say is very likely to sound promotional.
I suggest checking your sources against the triple criteria in WP:42: they need to be all three in order to contribute to establishing notability. ColinFine (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this info. The Coloradoan, BizWest, and Sky-HiNews are all newspapers. They have nothing to do with OneCanopy, they simply reported on the company. The Wild Things & Wild Places podcast is also independent of OneCanopy but interviewed a member of OneCanopy for an episode. The other two sources are national organizations completely independent of OneCanopy and I only shared them to support the statement that OneCanopy held memberships in those notable organizations. Please advise further as I'm not understanding how newspapers which are independent and reliable sources are not considered independent of the company, OneCanopy, which is a reforestation nursery with no affiliation to news media. Sapr1930 (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the organs are not indpendent, but that those articles are not independent. For example, The Coloradan have very clearly interviewed Brinkman, and based their article on what he said (even though only couple of paragraphs are explicitly quoted). That is not independent, it is echoing what the company says. ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you will only accept articles in which they did not interview people that are associated with the company? Sapr1930 (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:04, 19 December 2024 review of submission by Sportsguyaus

Hi, I drafted the article about the NQSF earlier this year after becoming aware of them through some community events - and reached out to find more details. Since I drafted the article, I have subsequently been employed by them. The article did not make it past the Draft phase, feedback being it needed more resources to reach threshold for coverage.

How should I proceed? It would no longer be suitable of me to continue a draft based on my position? Does anyone think this page should meet the notable criteria

I'm newish to etiquette etc. so I apologise for any well-intended mistakes in advance. Sportsguyaus (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Sportsguyaus. You may continue to work on the draft, provided you first make the mandatory declaration (normally on your user page) of your status as a paid editor.
You will need to make sure that your sources meet all three of the criteria in 42. If you cannot find at least three sources that meet these criteria, the Foundation does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and you should give up.
If you can find three or more, you should forget absolutely everything you know about the Foundation, and write a neutral summary of what those sources say. Even if you know something that directly invalidates what one of the sources says, you may not put your knowledge in unless it is published - and depending on what the information is, you probably shouldn't even if it is published but only by the Foundation. This is because Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth - and it is also one of the reasons why editing with a conflict of interest can be difficult. ColinFine (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ColinFine, this is very helpful. I'll conduct a review for notability prior to continuing, and be sure to work through verifiable works and not truth as you pointed out. Sportsguyaus (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

03:47, 20 December 2024 review of submission by MajorbucksYT

Could you please check out this page and see if it is ready to be accepted. If not give me reasons (Please don't be about the references) MajorbucksYT (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MajorbucksYT: If you want the draft to be reviewed again (that is to say, if you want someone to check it to see if it can be accepted), you need to submit it by clicking the "Resubmit" button. Why would you not want to know that the referencing is inadequate, if that should be the case? --bonadea contributions talk 06:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's like "Please tell me whether my house is likely to fall down, but don't mention the foundations". An article is a summary of what reliable independent sources say about a subject, and very little else. Absolutely nothing you know about the subject belongs in the article unless you can find a published source for it. Large amousnts of your draft are unreferenced (and while policies don't require that everything actually be referenced as long as it could be, reviewers tend to be unhappy if references that could be there are missing). ColinFine (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I reference correctly though? Like first a brief summary of whatever, but like do I have to phrase it so the reference goes in perfectly or something?

The guide pages aren't helping at all MajorbucksYT (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MajorbucksYT: you clearly know how to reference, technically speaking at least, because you've managed to create 12 citations which seem okay to me. The problem is that you're citing some non-reliable sources like Twitter, and much of the content in this draft is unreferenced – where is all that information coming from, and how do we know it's true? Every material statement should come from a reliable source, and you need to tell us the source by citing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you! MajorbucksYT (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:39, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Thehistorianisaac

May I ask if the time needed to wait for a review is longer for resubmits? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: no, it's not; all drafts are reviewed in no particular order (time- or otherwise), and that's true of resubmissions as well as new drafts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:55, 20 December 2024 review of submission by LeeMind12

Dear KylieTastic, Currently, the available references I have are primarily from social media channels (mainly Facebook), as StrongBull FC is still in its early stages and has not yet received significant coverage in mainstream media. I am actively seeking more in-depth and reliable sources from local and regional news outlets that could demonstrate the team's notability and involvement in various student sports leagues and events. LeeMind12 (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: KylieTastic. If there are no independent sources so far, the topic is likely too soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no, [insert sources here] does not establish notability. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @CanonNi. LeeMind12 I was just responding to your post on your talk page, please give people time to respond we are all volunteers and see the answer there. KylieTastic (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"StrongBull FC is still in its early stages and has not yet received significant coverage in mainstream media"- this would mean that it does not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:11, 20 December 2024 review of submission by CSharpStudentToo

There seems to be plenty of references online and in published books. Also a published author and a full-time journalist for one of the biggest magazines in Finland. Can you please elaborate why not considered important enough? CSharpStudentToo (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that he is a notable author. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:21, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Davidaquije

Would you please see the edits and reconsider the publication of this page? Davidaquije (talk) 16:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidaquije you would need to submit for review by pressing the big blue Resubmit button. However, your references are formatted incorrectly (they are not full citations), and I see no evidence she meets our notability guidelines for people. qcne (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 20 December 2024 review of submission by 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:F4AD:F079:1810:EC9

There are more informations in this page coming soon! 2A02:A03F:6A97:E201:F4AD:F079:1810:EC9 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop creating pointless article drafts. The draft title has been protected against creation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:25, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Uttam18

Please Describe my mistakes in Hindi, I don't know the actual meaning of the mistakes Uttam18 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to understand our comments unless they are in Hindi, you should participate at the Hindi Wikipedia. This place is to ask about drafts, not articles, you should go to Talk:Buhalipal. 331dot (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uttam18: Courtesy link: hi.wp. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Tedelaney2006

I honestly do not have any additional sources. I am using a copy of the score which I have cited. I am familiar with this work for over 40 years. What other sources could I include? Tedelaney2006 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article summarizes 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. If no independent sources give this work significant coverage, it would not merit a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tedelaney2006: I have moved the draft to Draft:Symphony No. 2 (Stenhammar) (the previous title still works, and redirects to the new one) and fixed the spelling in the draft text as well. Finding reliable sources will be easier if you use the correct spelling. By using the Google Scholar search engine I find a respectable number of sources – some are in Swedish, which is acceptable, although English sources are preferred in the English-language version of Wikipedia. You might also be able to get help identifying reliable sources if you ask at the WikiProject Classical music talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 09:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Juaniferrero3

I need help with the comment previous publish the article. Your feedback seems that it is the only thing it´s wrong. Juaniferrero3 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for posting essays. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:27, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Zub8eti

Can you guys please tell me how to get this live so things are done properly and accordingly and the right way. Let us know exactly what is needed. Also how does one change the page title and remove draft? Please let us know Zub8eti (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't it has been rejected and tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP is blocked. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:35, 20 December 2024 review of submission by Slim8029

When I click within the text, then click on Cite and add the template information about the new citation, it makes the new entry #1 in the reference list and increments the reference number of every existing reference. It's incredibly confusing to have the reference numbers change all the time. Is there any way to do this so the new citation gets the next number following the last of the existing references? Thanks Slim8029 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No!
"This behaviour is by design", as programmers love to say. I really can't see how it could work any other way.
Like most software bugs, it's important, and hard, to say just what the real problem is. Is it that you're getting the new cite pasted in at the top of the article? That's a different problem (and shouldn't be happening). But really, references should be, have to be, and are, numbered in sequence. That means they will get renumbered to maintain this sequence, no matter the order you add them in. Welcome to the world of academic publishing.
I'd suggest using the code editor, not the visual editor, and learning to work a bit more hands-on with the wikitext source code. It's not really that hard (everything is weird, so all of us just work by copying around the last snippet that worked right!)
Also just bang it in any old how, explain what's happening, what's wrong, and get some old greybeard to fix the annoying details afterwards. The wiki editing model is good at that, if we can just allow it and not get tied up in WP:BUREAUCRACY. Also use the Talk: page as much as possible. It solves so many problems.
This is an interesting topic for an article and I look forward to it going live. But it does need more sourcing for some sections. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will do as you suggest and just bang the references in. I am aware that I lack published sourcing for some stuff, sad to say. For instance, the Herbert Morrison statement was made to me by my mother and written down by me many years ago, but that cannot possibly be an acceptable source. My plan is to add as many references as I can, then strip out the stuff I'm sure will not pass the reviewers. Some of the relationship details are in geni.com and I don't know if that's acceptable. Slim8029 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

03:00, 21 December 2024 review of submission by MajorbucksYT

Are corp.roblox.com, kristolex.com, ginx.tv, dilt.co or Roblox dev forum reliable sources?

Roblox dev forum only allows a select amount of people post, not everyone.

MajorbucksYT (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MajorbucksYT: How many people are allowed to post is irrelevant. What matters is if they have an editorial staff that fact-checks, issues retractions, etc. And by default BBSes do not have those. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 09:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:46, 21 December 2024 review of submission by Vishalarya1

Please reload page Vishalarya1 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves or post their resume. Please use actual social media to do that. Writing about yourself is highly discouraged, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:09, 21 December 2024 review of submission by Spworld2

I have been requesting to move this article to the main space for many months and have not received a proper result from the admins. The article is developed based on the available information and the sources are notable Spworld2 (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers are not just admins. The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place to post essays. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:25, 21 December 2024 review of submission by JaredWEngland

Greetings. I'm trying to establish a new page, but am unsure how to adequately address the comments provided to my first draft. I added several additional references, but am not sure that will be adequate. In short, I'm trying address some confusion with the hierarchy of existing Wikipedia articles. There are articles about Air Station Elizabeth City and the Elizabeth City Regional Airport. However, these are just two of several Base Elizabeth City tenants. My goal is to create a Base page to clarify the structure, better communicate what's at the campus, and provide a framework that will enable better information moving forward. Without a Base page, there isn't a location for this information to be built. Contributing to the challenge, the general pubic is largely unclear of the differing functions on the Base, so external references I can cite often have embedded in them the very confusion that I'm trying to address with this article. I know I cannot cite myself, but I'm a career Coast Guard officer who has worked on the Base at high levels. I'm seeking to address a problem I've seen both in the community here, and to a lesser degree within the Coast Guard itself. Especially for new members transferring to Elizabeth City, it is difficult to understand the makeup of the location. My hope is that this new page can become a repository for useful information to address these concerns, but it must exist first. Thanks for any help or guidance you can provide. JaredWEngland (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purposes you outline above are no doubt very laudable, but they are not what we do at Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable indpendent sources say about a notable topic, and very little else. "A base page to clarify the structure" doesn't sound like that - it sounds more like original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm expressing myself poorly, but this isn't original research. I'm just trying to create a page for an actual location where about 3,000 people work everyday and generates ~50% of the GDP for northeastern North Carolina. I want to create the page as a "skeleton" that can be built on to flesh out the details of this place by myself and others in the future. My reference to structure was that, to establish how the place is organized, so that there is a place for the details to subsequently be filled in. Other Coast Guard Bases, much smaller and less significant in mission, personnel, and reach, have a page. Why not this one? Coast Guard Base KodiakCoast Guard Base KetchikanCoast Guard Base BostonCoast Guard IslandCoast Guard Base Cape Cod JaredWEngland (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JaredWEngland: All but the articles on Ketchikan and Cape Cod predate the drafting process entirely, and those two predate drafting being made all-but mandatory. They did not go thru the same process as your draft has to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Beware of the other stuff exists argument. Those other articles could themselves be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by volunteers.
A draft article does not need to be complete, but it does need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the base. If you have a source for the claim that it generates 50% of the GDP for part of North Carolina, that's a start. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've edited again and resubmitted. Unfortunately, many of the sources for information I have aren't available on the internet, so citing them isn't possible. The most recent adds & references what I was able to find in existing sources.
Taking a step back, I understand the need for a draft/review process but this feels excessive. I've put a fair amount of time into this (creating a page and learning all the rules/software/formatting/ect has a steep learning curve) for what still may be 100% waste effort. I'm afraid that most people will give up much quicker, and Wikipedia will devolve to the major mainstream dated info model that the now defunct encyclopedias of yore used. In the balance between the unconstrained free for all of the early wiki days and absolute odious control of a rigorous academic reference, this feels too much like the latter. However, I'm an infrequent Wikipedia contributor and light financial backer, so my opinion is likely of low value. Volunteers are the magic of Wikipedia, and that's mostly you. Even though this has been frustrating, thanks for what you do! JaredWEngland (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JaredWEngland: You can still cite - and we can still accept - offline sources, as long as they are cited properly. If we disallowed offline sources, we'd basically have to decimate every article on historical events and figures that we have. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again @JaredWEngland. Neither the number of people who work there nor the revenue it generates is necessarily indicative of meeting Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Meeting those criteria is the absolute first stage of creating an article, because otherwise the article is not going to get accepted. ColinFine (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added a bunch more references to substantiate my opinion that it does meet the notability guidelines. However, to me that criteria reads with a fair amount of subjectivity, and other opinions may differ. If I'm again told it doesn't meet them, then I'll still disagree, but appreciate the clarity and will drop the subject. JaredWEngland (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to be online, they only need to be publicly available; books/magazines in a library are fine.. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:41, 21 December 2024 review of submission by ProofandTrust

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback on my submission. I’ve carefully reviewed your explanation but still find it unclear why my article was not accepted. I noticed that Wikipedia currently lacks a dedicated definition of Vendor Risk Assessment, a fundamental concept in information security. My goal is to provide an encyclopedic explanation of this widely used term to inform readers about its importance and relevance. Your feedback mentioned that the article resembles an essay. However, I intended it to be a neutral, fact-based description aligned with Wikipedia’s standards. If there are specific sections or phrases that need revision to make it more suitable, I’d appreciate detailed guidance. I’m committed to improving the article to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and would greatly value further clarification to ensure it aligns with community standards.

Thank you for your time and assistance. ProofandTrust (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ProofandTrust. Your draft is a blog-post style essay/how to guide/critique. That's not what an encyclopaedic entry on Wikipedia about a subject should look like. Instead, you should be paraphrasing reliable published sources (not blog posts, which most of your sources are) in a dry, factual manner using the Wikipedia Voice. I am afraid you will have to completely re-write your draft from scratch and find new sources for there to be any chance of it being accepted. qcne (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:07, 21 December 2024 review of submission by Wilfred Day

I am surprised this is not in place. It is highly relevant since the government will fall on the next confidence vote. What is wikipedia waiting for? Wilfred Day (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, being an encyclopaedia and not a news organ, is waiting until there is substantial independent coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I suspect that by the time there are adequate sources for such an article, the election will already have taken place, so there will be no need for this article. But I know nothing of Canadian politics.
See also there is no deadline. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no certainties in life. We don't assume something might happen, no matter how likely it is. 331dot (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 22

06:41, 22 December 2024 review of submission by MonkeyBanjo007

To clarify, I tried creating a page but if I had to guess I don't have enough information at the moment. I will try to add to it I just want to create a page so I can add to it. Conor is an Actor for several roles and also a Voice Actor of A video game.

I was wondering of how I can add a portrait image, you know by the side of all these people usually there is an image to acompany the person.

I was also wondering how you add images in general like of possibly the different characters he acts/ voice acts but I can't find a way to implement images or files.

Thanks- MonkeyBanjo007 (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MonkeyBanjo007 see Help:Pictures for a tutorial on how do insert them. Note that the amount of images does not increase a draft's odds of acceptance, while multiple independent reliable sources that notability do. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:43, 22 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40C2:8002:E055:8000:0:0:0

You Should Agree This Draft 2409:40C2:8002:E055:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the draft: Draft:Shubham X Rameshwar --bonadea contributions talk 07:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the draft's rejection. There is nothing that shows they are notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously answered here (question posted by blocked user User:Bollysocialmedia) and here (by User:Royaloaksschoolking) and here.
See also: Draft:Shubham Rameshwar Kakde about the same person (protected against creation after multiple re-creations and rejections), and this question as well as the two sections after that one, posted by blocked account User:Shubhamxrameshwar564. Please stop creating these drafts, and stop spamming the help boards about them. --bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:54, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Batoenonghistoryador

Hello,

I would like to ask for your help regarding the draft title of an article I am currently writing. If possible, could you change the title to "Atty. Howard Calleja et al. v. Executive Secretary et al."?

Additionally, I have a few questions:

1. How should I cite sources that are in PDF format? 2. In writing the article, is it permissible to list all the issues, given that they are material to the whole article? I am concerned that it might be flagged as a directory. Should I make it concise and risk omitting the core of the issues to shorten it?

Thank you so much for your guidance! 

Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Batoenonghistoryador: the title isn't important at this stage, this will be moved to a different title anyway when (if) accepted, and at that point the reviewer will place it at the correct title.
You can cite online PDFs with the {{cite web}} template. The format= parameter takes PDF as value, but you don't even have to specify that, the template picks it up from the file type automatically.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by your last question (#2), could you elaborate? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fully understand question 2 either, but I suspect that I can answer it by saying that a Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliably published sources say about a subject, and very little else. If independent commentators talk about all the issues, then you can list them; if no independent commentator refers to some issue, why should it appear in an encyclopaedia article at all?
As to question 1, DoubleGrazing has answered the technical part, but the question arises of whether these PDFs have been reliably published or not. ColinFine (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this informative response. Batoenonghistoryador (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 22 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40C2:8002:E055:1D7E:DFE2:FBA4:B566

HE IS A BIGGEST YOUNGER BUSINESSMAN 2409:40C2:8002:E055:1D7E:DFE2:FBA4:B566 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:10, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Njames05

How do I share my page here with two other people so they can help me add content? Nigel D James (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Njames05: drafts are public, so you just share the URL as you would any other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to invite collaborators on the draft. Thank you for declaring your COI - I have corrected the formatting on your user page so that the declaration actually appears as it should.
One of the first things you and they should do is to cite reliable published sources for all the unsourced material in the draft, and remove it if you can't find sources. You should also edit the text to remove all instances of "we": this is not in any sense the Club's article, but Wikipedia's article about the club, which should be almost entirely based on what people wholly unconnected with the club have chosen to publish about it, not on what the club or its associates say or want to say.
You should also unbold the section headers. ColinFine (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 22 December 2024 review of submission by 2409:40C2:8041:CA12:8029:E983:E715:C93B

Check now 2409:40C2:8041:CA12:8029:E983:E715:C93B (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it may not be resubmitted. If you have fundamentally changed the draft to address the concerns of reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 22 December 2024 review of submission by LR.127

This is a comment on an existing Wikipedia article already submitted through AfC - I had declined it previously for doubts on notability, which have faded after a deep discussion here on the Rafael de Miguel González page. The article was then accepted. Since then, I feel that loads more unsourced information has been added that question the neutrality of the original draft.

I do not intend to send this article to AfD, hence why I merely aim to discuss it here - at worst, the article could be reverted to its revision when accepted, and newer edits could be trimmed or otherwise removed.

I'm courtesy pinging a few people who contributed to the previous discussion: User:Timtrent, User:Joe Roe, User:Benison, User:Mr.choppers, and User:asilvering. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is an actual article, you should discuss on the article talk page(perhaps as a request for comment) or on the more general Help Desk. This board is only for drafts in the draft process. 331dot (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original comments were more of a frustration with the AFC process. I agree that after its recent revisions, Rafael de Miguel González reads more like a CV than anything else.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rafael de Miguel González reads more like a CV than anything else. Woof. You weren't kidding. Good call on the re-stub. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:45, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Bentasyt.1

what can i improve this article that it would be on wikipedia Bentasyt.1 (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message left by the reviewer, as well as the policies linked to therein. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Bentasyt.1. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
Very brief summary of writing an article:
  1. Find several sources which are reliably published, wholly independent of the subject of the article, and contain significant coverage of the subject. See WP:42
  2. If you can't find at least three such sources, give up and do something else.
  3. If you can find them, forget anything you may know about the subject, and write a summary of what those sources say about it.
ColinFine (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:35, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Sophisticatedevening

I added an infobox to the draft, however it is much too large, and I am unsure how to shrink it, and none of the parameters in the template seem to fix it. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up for you Sophisticatedevening. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sophisticatedevening (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:03, 22 December 2024 review of submission by Mariah Hopkins

Why was the article declined Mariah Hopkins (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Mariah Hopkins/sandbox ColinFine (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was declined because it doesn't have enough independent reliable citations to establish that she meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability - see WP:42. Of the three out of 15 citations that even might meet those criteria (actually 2, because 2 of them are the same source), the Lambo piece does not have significant coverage of her, so the TempoStub is the only one that even might be an acceptable source - though I suspect it is based on an interview or press release, so is not truly independent). Even if it is, one source is not enough to establish reliability, and most of the draft is not cited.
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.
Resubmitting the draft without making any changes is not recommended, and may be regarded as disruptive editing.
My comments to another editor above are equally applicable to your case. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

06:08, 23 December 2024 review of submission by Sonshiv

please upload my wikipedia 

Sonshiv (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pure advertising. Deleted and blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 23 December 2024 review of submission by 2001:4456:CEB:9B00:4434:7181:6BD4:ACBE

i want this article for my popular world to see my information please help me 2001:4456:CEB:9B00:4434:7181:6BD4:ACBE (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're Manasi32, please log into your account when editing.
There is no content in this draft, only an infobox. An infobox with unreferenced personal details of someone (maybe you, maybe someone else). For privacy reasons, I've deleted it, as well as the same information hosted on Manasi32's user page. Please do not publish (anyone's) personal details unnecessarily and without supporting them with reliable published sources.
Oh, and this draft was rejected already, therefore it wouldn't have been considered any further anyway.
Last but not least, assuming you were attempting to write about yourself, please see WP:AUTOBIO for why you shouldn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:47, 23 December 2024 review of submission by Thanvi 032

Why has the submission been rejected? Please accept it. Thanvi 032 (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thanvi 032: your draft Draft:Molana Inamur Rahman Inam Thanvi has not been rejected, which would mean it cannot be resubmitted; only declined, which means it can, once you have addressed the decline reasons. Which you have not done. Each decline notice told you to cite your sources inline, not in a big heap at the bottom, so that we can see where each piece of information has come from and how much of the content remains unsupported. That is the reason this has been (repeatedly) declined. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanvi 032, your draft is very poorly referenced. Vast swathes are unreferenced in violation of Verifiability, a core content policy. Please read and study Reliable sources and Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have resolved the reasons for the shortage. And sources are also cited. Draft: Molana Inamur Rahman Inam Thanvi Please watch it again. And if something is missing, tell me. thank you. Thanvi 032 (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thanvi 032: no changes have been made since the last review (yesterday). When you have made changes, hopefully addressing the decline reason, you may then resubmit this draft for another review; we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:31, 23 December 2024 review of submission by Tropical Appreciater10001-400

Regarding the decline of making the draft a article. After careful review of wikipedias policy, My understanding is that Fictional works do not have to cite sources. I may be wrong, so correct me if you please. which is what i am regarding. Tropical Appreciater10001-400 (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Theroadislong (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropical Appreciater10001-400: not so; every article has to cite its sources.
In reviewing Wikipedia policies, you appear to have missed the one about not publishing hoaxes and fictitious things of assorted types. If you wish to tell the world about your idea, you need to find some other platform to do that; perhaps one of the many blogging sites out there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concern regarding the use of fictional works on Wikipedia. However, I wanted to clarify that Palame is a fictional setting created for a Roblox game, and it exists in that context. While it is indeed fictional, it is a component of a larger creative project that others might find interesting. If this is not appropriate for Wikipedia, I would be happy to explore other ways to share this concept, but I thought it was worth explaining the context.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Tropical Appreciater10001-400 (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, wherever you heard that, your understanding is incorrect. Perhaps you are referring to plot summaries of films and books(which don't need to be cited as they can be verified by reading the book/watching the film). Wikipedia is not a host of fictional content. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe i understand now. for a draft/document to be accepted it must have media and/or publicity, or any outwards sources. such as a videos on social media of the creation. and/or if the game was published, and is avalible for the public on the platform (Roblox) to clarify, yes it is published on Roblox, but is not widely played or known, if you do say i can provide with you with a link if needed. but i do think i understand. Tropical Appreciater10001-400 (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated content, such as social media videos, cannot establish notability unless they are published by a reputable source. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:43, 23 December 2024 review of submission by 14.194.64.70

this is page information please live it. 14.194.64.70 (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not Wikihow. We do not host guides on buying real estate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:47, 23 December 2024 review of submission by Pr.nutrition

I have been trying to get my article to get my article approved for 6 months already and it is always rejected. Could you please point on specific sentences I should change and tell me what is wrong with them? I have already deleted all the content that didnt have references and still I cannot get approval. Pr.nutrition (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pr.nutrition Prior to anyone answering your question you need to visit your user talk page and respond to the question about whether you are a paid editor that I have just placed there. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:39, 23 December 2024 review of submission by FelixKerscher

Why was my submission declined? FelixKerscher (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FelixKerscher Please read the rationale in the big box that now resides at the head of the draft. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says that my sources should be: in-depth, reliable, secondary and independent. My sources definitely fulfil the first two requirements. All bar one of my sources are peer-reviewed journal articles. Some which have thousands of citations (not a perfect proxy for reliability, but it’s as good as it’s gonna get). I didn’t take the information in the big box seriously because I thought it was auto generated. FelixKerscher (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could also ask the reviewer CSMention269 if they have any more input on what is lacking from the sources to show notability. KylieTastic (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I go about doing that? Do I just try tag them here? FelixKerscher (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FelixKerscher: By commenting on their user talk page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:05, 23 December 2024 review of submission by Zraffarz

Hello, hope I am writing at the right place. I have made a first submission a couple of days ago, and my article was declined because of the tone wasn't right / neutral at certain places. At first I wasn't in agreement with the reviewer, but after careful re-reading I must agree that I had to make some changes. I have since then edited the article to fix those passages and resubmitted the article. I was wondering if I could get a feedback on the article as well as having it accepted ?

I feel like I have put in the work, and that I also found many reliable articles to support it, but I am open to comments.

Regards. Zraffarz (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is laughably promotional, do you work for the company by any chance? "Surmesur combines traditional tailoring with technology offering clients personalized experiences through digital fitting tools and diverse customization options." is straight from the marketing department. Theroadislong (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't work for Surmesur no. I am not paid either for writing this article. I am French speaking though, so maybe what you see as being laughably promotional is simply that some things you see offensive I read them as being neutral. Are there other sections that are not fitting ? Like I said, I want to put in the work.
Regards Zraffarz (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I did work on the draft, and removed passages like the one you mentioned. I also removed any content that could be misinterpreted (like the awards section i felt could be interesting, but removed it as I am trying to find the difference between content and promotional content). Would you be willing to give it another pass ? Draft:Surmesur
Much appreciated Zraffarz (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:56, 23 December 2024 review of submission by 2600:1700:78E8:9500:8CCE:C49F:4109:DA09

hey what exactly was wrong 2600:1700:78E8:9500:8CCE:C49F:4109:DA09 (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". A Wikipedia article, whatever its subject, should be a summary of what independent reliable sources say about a subject. What the subject, or their associates, say or want to say is of almost no relevance. ColinFine (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

00:17, 24 December 2024 review of submission by Nycrest

Hello - I added the appropriate sources (NBC, PIX11, etc.) and cleaned up the article to be neutral based on the rules (no promotion) Nycrest (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nycrest "no promotion"? I don't see how unorthodox approach to fine dining, theatrical presentations, and playful irreverence towards traditional fine dining conventions is neutral. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am quoting the videos that are sourced. Is there another way of doing quotes? Is there an article you can reference for how to handle quotes from journalists?
I am unsure how unorthodox and irreverence towards fine dining is good thing? Wouldn't promotion equal something of value? There is nothing on Wikipedia that says something is unorthodox.. as unorthodox is a promotional word? I cannot seem to phrase this in a non-promotion way based on what is considered neutral, the page is already pretty bare bones. I will attempt again to make edits and will see how it works out; Thanks for your time. Nycrest (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how this establishment meets WP:ORG- you just summarize the offerings of the establishment. If the establishment is "unorthodox" you need to go into detail as to what sources say is unorthodox about it beyond just a statement that its business practices are unorthodox. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:27, 24 December 2024 review of submission by Hedax212

I want this company to get some recognition, I have no relation to either founder and have never written a wikipedia article before but there is nothing online about them. I purchased one of their ornaments as new old stock on ebay and wanted to find out more about it and was even able to track down one of the founders Micheal Leban and was able to have a small interview with him where the majority of this information comes from. They essentially pioneered a niche automotive accesory field at a time where hood ornaments were going out of fashion. I made a rough draft and don't know what I need to do now to have it published. Hedax212 (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hedax212 to submit the draft you need to click the big blue button near the top. However note that with the only source being US patent number US4988065A, it is unlikely to be accepted. Please see Help:Your first article first. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is next to no information publically available on the company, I only know most of this from the packaging of a unit I purchased and a brief conversation with one of the previous owners. Hedax212 (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that means they are likely not notable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, my personal feelings on the matter are that they quite literally pioneered a niche field. To my knowledge they were the first company to make aftermarket hood ornaments. Hedax212 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Without these things, there can't be an article. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:55, 24 December 2024 review of submission by MarkDiBelloBiographer

Is it possible to delete a photo? I know I can replace one, but if I insert a photo box, it seems I can never remove it. I would hate to add a photo which I can never remove. MarkDiBelloBiographer (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mark Anthony DiBello Knitsey (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkDiBelloBiographer: I don't know what a 'photo box' is, or why you wouldn't be able to remove one if you can insert one; I can only assume you're talking about something to do with the visual editor, of which I've very little experience. In the source editing mode, you can certainly remove any trace of an earlier image.
Having said all that, your draft looks like some sort of personal tribute page or similar, not least because of the excessive use of family/personal photographs. These are quite inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, in my opinion at least.
On a separate point, your user name clearly suggests some sort of connection with the subject. This has been queried on your talk page, but I don't see that you've responded to the query. Could you do that now, please. If you are being paid or otherwise rewarded for your edits, you must make a paid-editing-disclosure. Even if you're not, but otherwise have an external relationship with the subject, you must make a general conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosure. Please attend to this matter promptly. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:57, 24 December 2024 review of submission by Muhammedramees18

Why My edit is declined? Muhammed Ramees E P (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhammedramees18: your draft was not just declined, it was actually rejected (meaning, the end of the road), because it offers no evidence of notability, not to mention that it is entirely promotional and written purely from the subject's point of view.
What is your relationship with this school? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Co Founder of this school. Muhammed Ramees E P (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muhammedramees18: in that case, you have a conflict of interest, and need to make a paid-editing-disclosure. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Muhammedramees18. Writing a new article is much more difficult than it looks, and editors who try it without first spending a significant amount of time learning how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating and disappointing experience. It is even more difficult when the editors has a conflict of interest. My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft.
A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about a subject, and very little else. Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what your school says or wants to say about itself, only in what wholly independent commentators have published about it. For many schools, that is little or nothing: if that is the case, then no article on the school is possible.
Note also that if ever Wikipedia has an article about your school, whoever writes it, the article will not belong to you, will not be controlled by you, will not necessarily say what you want it to say, and may be edited by almost anybody in the world except you and your colleagues. Please see an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. ColinFine (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:35, 24 December 2024 review of submission by 223.190.86.242

how to submit an article, can you give me any solution for update an article 223.190.86.242 (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a guide about universities in India and your submission is not appropriate as an encyclopedic article. It has been rejected and will not be considered any further. cyberdog958Talk 07:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:04, 24 December 2024 review of submission by Sunuraju

should i seek help for rebelibe or rewrite by another editors for draft? Sunuraju (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 24 December 2024 review of submission by JustBeenji

I have a question. Can you or i or anyone get editorship? Because making this page better can be good. JustBeenji (talk) 10:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustBeenji: you are an editor. So am I. So is pretty much anyone else who has ever edited any page on Wikipedia.
But no editor can magic notability out of thin air, and without evidence of notability, this draft cannot be published. Which is why it has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do i have to create a new draft? JustBeenji (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JustBeenji: in a word, no. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There is absolutely nothing in this draft that would suggest the subject is even remotely notable, and therefore no matter how many drafts you create on it, none of them would be accepted. (You would, however, almost certainly get yourself blocked, eventually.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Henry Stickmin is popular! Why not? -- JustBeenji JustBeenji (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, because you haven't provided a single source that indicates that this is a notable game. It could be notable, as it does seem to be a popular series of point-and-click video games, but the draft itself is so sparsely written that it's nearly impossible to even identify who or what Henry Stickmin is, let alone present the case for this being a notable video game series. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JustBeenji: Popularity is fleeting, notability is forever. Without sources, you cannot demonstrate the latter. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:39, 24 December 2024 review of submission by SarahSamuell

i put 2 references and it also got rejected , what else should i do?? SarahSamuell (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All new articles on Wikipedia have to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Your two sources do not do this, they just show the subject exists. Posts on social media such as pinterest are also not reliable sources in most cases. Also most of your content was unsourced. Also see WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KylieTastic (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @SarahSamuell. Please see my lengthy reply to Muhammedramees18 above, most of which applies to you as well. ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what has already been said, there are serious problems with the photographs as you've uploaded them to Commons and credited them as your own work. Naturally, I am skeptical you took these photos personally over an 84-year period. If these are not your photos, you need to make them fully compliant with Wikipedia's non-free content policies, which can be found at WP:NFC. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't resubmit a draft that has already been rejected. If you disagree with the rejection, the way to address this is to take it up with the rejecting reviewer directly. And we have already discussed this on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:09, 24 December 2024 review of submission by WikiBaltimore

Hello. An article I recently submitted "Turner Development" was just declined for "appears to read like an advertisement". Here is the entire submission.....

"Turner Development is a real estate development company based in Maryland. Turner Development specializes in ground up and Adaptive reuse renovations. Notable projects include Silo Point Condominium in Locust Point, Baltimore, 1211 Light St, McHenry Pointe, Federal Hill Lofts in Federal Hill, Baltimore, Henrietta Square, Holy Cross Condominiums and McHenry Theater."

I disagree with the "appears to read like an advertisement" and would like you to please reconsider the submission. None of 3 sentences are subjective or in any way promoting Turner Development, just facts that were backed by the numerous references submitted with the article. What was submitted are just 3 factual sentences to start a wikipedia page for other Wiki community members to contribute as they see fit.

For example, Silo Point is one of projects mentioned and an outstanding wiki page has grown over the years around the history and facts on the former grain elevators story. The other projects listed in the original submission also have an incredible historical story to tell by the wiki community for their significant impact they have played in Marylands past.

Thank you for you reconsideration and insight as to what/how the 3 would need to be reworded to make sure they meet wiki guidelines and a new page is create to help spur greater conversations on the wiki community about the signitical historic locations listed in the original submission. ~ Happy Hollidays. WikiBaltimore (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiBaltimore: Wikipedia articles summarise what independent and reliable secondary sources have previously said about a subject and what makes it worthy of note. Your draft, on the other hand, merely states that the subject exists, and gives very much the impression that it is the subject telling the world about itself (which is the definition of promotion, see WP:YESPROMO), with a dozen sources tagged at the end for WP:REFBOMBING purposes.
Do you happen to work for, or with, Turner Development, by any chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references are about the projects Turner Development has been involved in, not, about Turner Development, the company, mostly about Silo Point, which does already have an article. And the references are just slapped in a giant bucket at the end rather than supporting factual information with in-line citations. What are the sources for the notability of these other projects besides Silo Point? What is the source for specifically concluding that the company "specializes in ground up and Adaptive reuse renovations?" You can't simply infer that from the listed projects as that's WP:OR. At the end of the day, the article doesn't really even tell us anything about Turner Development. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, thank you for the feedback WikiBaltimore (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:21, 24 December 2024 review of submission by Juanestebanfernandez

I don't undertstand why my page has been suspended, i was the most parcial i could and y followed all the recomendations you gave me. Please i need help publishing this. Juanestebanfernandez (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Juanestebanfernandez: your draft was declined because it doesn't demonstrate that the subject is notable. There is also nothing to indicate where all that information comes from, let alone that it comes from reliable and independent secondary sources.
Do you represent Trusted Interpreters or CSA Research in any way? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not written in an encyclopedic manner, the text itself is complete unsourced with only some general tangentially related sites listed at the end, it looks like AI was heavily used in creating it, and we already have far superior information of this type at articles like Language interpretation. Yes, the article focuses on interpretation services in the US rather than generally, but there's almost no actual specific US-related content other than a couple unsourced facts. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:23, 24 December 2024 review of submission by CerebralPathfinder

Why has my article been denied? I'd like to ask why my content has been declined and what I can do to add it CerebralPathfinder (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CerebralPathfinder I fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. Did you see the message left by the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah yes just seen! thank you CerebralPathfinder (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the draft is sourced entirely to company materials. Instead, it should summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company.
If you work for this company, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID, as well as conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

05:21, 25 December 2024 review of submission by NOMAN ABBASS

I've made edits , provided sources and references yet my article hasn't been accepted . I don't understand why . I request clarification please help me NOMAN ABBASS (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NOMAN ABBASS: We do not accept guides. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:02, 25 December 2024 review of submission by Anonymous 21710

can you please tell me what are the problems that can occur while publishing this article. 

Anonymous 21710 (talk) 06:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonymous21710: Not only is this draft blatantly promotional and entirely unsourced, the subject is a minor and we err on not having articles on minors simply because that destroys any chance they have at a private life. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:29, 25 December 2024 review of submission by NakiwugeFlorence

What article do they need, because they are many but may be jam not choosing the right ones NakiwugeFlorence (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NakiwugeFlorence: a musician would need to demonstrate notability via either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:MUSICBIO guideline. Carefully study those guidelines, they will tell you exactly what evidence of notability you would need to provide. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check my sources and help fix where i went wrong NakiwugeFlorence (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NakiwugeFlorence: I have no need to check your sources; an experienced reviewer has done so, and rejected your draft. This means it will not be considered further. If you have sources demonstrating notability which weren't considered at the most recent review, you may appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:27, 25 December 2024 review of submission by KimJongUnsBasement

It keeps getting rejected. I don’t know what they want me to do now, there isn’t much information on Quesada, and most of his articles are in Spanish. KimJongUnsBasement (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't "rejected" until the last time, it was "declined" before that(declined means resubmission is possible) If there isn't much information about them, that is a strong indicator they do not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Sources do not need to be in English. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what do. I added citations, but still it gets declined. I’ve seen far worst Wikipedia Articles be accepted. Please just accept it and other people can add on to it, it’s not like it’s a protective page, anyone can edit and help me out. I know you’re probably gonna say no, (if you even read in the first place) because of what’s on your user page, but it was worth a try. KimJongUnsBasement (talk) 14:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KimJongUnsBasement: footballers have to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, which requires 3+ solid sources. This draft cites none.
What is your involvement with this draft? It was created by a blocked user. Are you somehow associated with them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KimJonUnsBasement Please edit this existing section, instead of creating additional sections for every post you make. This process is usually voluntary; if you wish to disregard what reviewers are telling you, you can move it to the encyclopedia yourself, but you run the risk of it being put up for a deletion discussion.
As for other articles, see other stuff exists. Not all articles have gone through this process. If you see reviewers accepting "worse" articles, please identify those articles. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafts do not need to be complete, but they need to meet the most basic criteria. Your draft does not. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading about him on TransferMarket and searched him up on Wikipedia until notice he didn’t have an English Wikipedia Page. I have no involvement with the person who created the page KimJongUnsBasement (talk) 14:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 25 December 2024 review of submission by 2.190.166.198

this person is a famous rapper in iran . please recheck my article 2.190.166.198 (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor, this has been rejected so will not be considered further. qcne (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 25 December 2024 review of submission by Amjsso

I just wanted to create a politician page Amjsso (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Amjsso, have you read the policy at WP:VERIFY? Everything on Wikipedia must have reliable, published sources. Your draft is entirely unsourced. qcne (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 25 December 2024 review of submission by Sanjaygowda18

My page is deleted without any valid reasons retrieve the page Sanjaygowda18 (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is one of the advocat in Bangalore who is helping out the poor people Sanjaygowda18 (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't write spam on Wikipedia, which is what your draft was. If you want to learn how to write an encyclopedic article that complies with our policies, please visit Help:Your first article. qcne (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:20, 25 December 2024 review of submission by AngelicaMonsalud

I would like to know how to improve your tone writing in a formal way? AngelicaMonsalud (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters limit what you write to what is in the sources, currently most of the draft is without a single source. Theroadislong (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

06:11, 26 December 2024 review of submission by 117.254.37.23

My draft article has been rejected multiple times and I am trying to get it approved. I will submit one more edit. I request any experienced editors to help me refine this article so I can get it approved before Jan 1, 2025. Appreciate the community's help. 117.254.37.23 (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you're Ssaisushanth45, please log into your account whenever editing.
Secondly, bear in mind that as a paid user, you are not allowed to attempt publishing this yourself; you must go through the AfC review system (as you are now doing).
I cannot find any multiple rejections or even declines. One version was deleted from the main article space for being purely promotional. Another was moved into the draft space, where it has been declined ones. Or have you created this under other titles and/or other user accounts?
It isn't clear what support you require. Please ask specific questions, if you have any.
We do not get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. More generally, you will struggle to find anyone in the wider community to do that, on a subject in which few other editors have any interest. Besides, you are being paid to create this, not us (we're all volunteers), so why would anyone else do your job for you?
As for your Jan 1 deadline (whether self- or externally imposed), that isn't a consideration for us. Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline.
Finally, you yourself should read, and more to the point show to you boss, this: WP:BOSS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DoubleGrazing. I had published the article and was put into Speedy Deletion mode. After a couple of back and forths, one of the reviewers had moved the article to draft space. There are no other versions. Not sure how you interpret "I request any experienced editors to help me refine this article so I can get it approved before Jan 1, 2025" for this
"We do not get involved in co-editing here at the help desk. More generally, you will struggle to find anyone in the wider community to do that, on a subject in which few other editors have any interest. Besides, you are being paid to create this, not us (we're all volunteers), so why would anyone else do your job for you?
As for your Jan 1 deadline (whether self- or externally imposed), that isn't a consideration for us."
Other reviewers were kind enough to point out areas in my article which violated certain rules - I was merely requesting more of the same once I submit my edited version for review and noting this is a priority for me.
Ssaisushanth45 (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssaisushanth45: if all you're requesting is another review (after you resubmit your draft), then that is what you will get anyway; there is no need to request it in advance here at the help desk. When you get your review is another matter; we have over 1,800 pending drafts in the system, the oldest have been waiting for two months, and therefore we cannot promise this will happen before your deadline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 26 December 2024 review of submission by Ramakrishnan.babug

May I know the reason for rejecting my article? 

Ramakrishnan.babug (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ramakrishnan.babug Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1265304541"