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 Umakant Bhalerao (talk | contribs) at 09:18, 8 June 2024 (→08:15, 5 June 2024 review of submission by David.G.82.21). 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


June 2

07:01, 2 June 2024 review of submission by মোঃ সবুজ বিশ্বাস

How can I submission article?? মোঃ সবুজ বিশ্বাস (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, that's what rejection means. You have no sources whatsoever- and seem to be promoting this person. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Jickiebou6y6

It’s a real person how can I publish this article? Jickiebou6y6 (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jickiebou6y6: we don't doubt that, but you need to a) show that the person is notable by satisfying either the WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST notability guidelines, and b) support the information with inline citations to reliable published sources (see WP:REFB). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:36, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Leo0502

The article was rejected for three reasons:

- Links in article body - links are moved to <ref>.

- Opinion polling for next Turkish election is not a notable subject / too soon - pages for opinion polling are created as soon as polls are published, usually a few weeks after previous election. This was the case for Portugal, Spain, Poland, Slovakia, Netherlands, Denmark etc. Why is article for Turkey being held up? It's been a year since previous election, there were plenty of polls and similar article exists on Turkish Wikipedia.

- Twitter is not a reliable source - it is, if it's official twitter account of polling firm. Twitter sources were used in article about 2023 elections in Turkey - why is Twitter considered an unreliable source in this article? Leo0502 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo0502: to be clear, the draft (not yet 'article') was declined (not 'rejected', which would mean the end of the road) for lack of evidence of notability; the other reasons were offered as additional comments.
If you disagree with that assessment, you're free to move this into the main article space yourself, as you have the necessary permissions. New page patrol will then assess it instead.
If it were me, I would try to find better sources for those Twitter cites, because they are throwing up red flags all over the place and prejudicing the draft unnecessarily. But it's not me, and you must do as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The official Twitter account of the polling company probably does count as a reliable source, but not an independent one, and so does not contribute to establishing that the subject is notable in Wikipedia's sense. ColinFine (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:59, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Arqureashipk

Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. Arqureashipk (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arqureashipk: I'm sure it is. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:Dr. Qari Ikramullah Mohsin
@Arqureashipk: Your draft is both undersourced and hagiographic. We don't accept promotional text, and every claim the article makes that a reasonable person could challenge must be properly cited to a third-party reliable source that verifies it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:25, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Leaschlatter

Dear Team, I have trouble publishing this article about Massimo Filippini. I received the comments that there are not enough external sources, however, I do feel like there are a lot. Indeed, there are sources from the national Swiss radio (in French, German, and Italian), associations, and initiatives citing his great work as an economist. I would like to seek your help on this matter. Thank you in advance. Best, Lea Leaschlatter (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaschlatter: thank you for disclosing your connection, first of all.
The decline wasn't on the basis that there aren't enough sources cited, but rather that those sources aren't sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. Please note that when the subject is commenting on other matters does not contribute to this, even when done on reputable and reliable media. We would need to see significant coverage of him, rather than commetary by him.
That said, I actually feel like this person probably is notable via another route, namely the special WP:NACADEMIC guideline, given the Titularprofessor title, h-index of 55, etc.
You will, however, need to support the contents better, as there is some unreferenced information. Pretty much every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and any private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. Anything which cannot be thus supported must be removed. (And you could just get rid of the entire 'Hobbies' section, which is not only unreferenced but also IMO not relevant.) HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to clarify this, it was very helpful. I made some changes accordingly. Would you have any further comments before I submit the Draft:Massimo Filippini draft again? Thank you in advance. Leaschlatter (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:26, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Yusofsheikh


ChatGPT I am requesting assistance because I need an article about Lottery Sambad. This article should be concise, around 200 words, and should highlight the key aspects of Lottery Sambad, such as its popularity, the frequency of draws, the impact on winners' lives, and the overall appeal of the lottery. The goal is to provide a brief yet informative overview that captures the essence of Lottery Sambad and its significance to participants. Yusofsheikh (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Yusofsheikh, I'm not ChatGPT, but I am here to tell you not to use ChatGPT to generate talk page messages any more than article or draft content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yusofsheikh: If you cannot read/write English competently enough to edit the English-language Wikipedia, then you need to work on the Wikipedia project for your mother tongue instead of using large-language models. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Noan Lowinen

Why was my submission was declined Noan Lowinen (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noan Lowinen: No sources, no article, no debate. The draft also doesn't give any indication as to why its subject is notable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 2 June 2024 review of submission by BalticSeal1209

Can you clarify what I need to add? I have added the sources which were requested. One being a secondary source of the portfolio of the individual and the notable one being the actual LABOUR PARTY website. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing there to suggest that the person is in any shape or form notable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a statement from the person where he is a candidate to be imvolved in the National Policy Forum which is how the Labour Party policy is formulated. I would argue that such role is very notable and to be a candidate for that is impressive. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BalticSeal1209 What has this young activist done to be notable? Fails WP:BIO as presented 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is a candidate for the NPF which means he could possibly become involved with the creation of Policy for the UK Labour Party.
Furthermore, he is an ambassador for the Borgen Project which is very impressive as that is an organisation working with governments across the world (mainly US and UK) to help tackle global poverty.
Therefore, being a political ambassador and possible policy maker for the current largest UK political party is very notable. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm afraid not, unless he has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a reliable source? Because if the Labour Party website is not reliable enough to prove his involvement in politics, then I do not know what does. BalticSeal1209 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BalticSeal1209: In-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Wilkinson news/scholarly sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. Anything Labour says about him is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Also, while we do have specific notability criteria for politicians, it deliberately excludes candidates for public office. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BalticSeal1209. In this case, only persons who meet our politician inclusion merit a Wikipedia article. Hayden does not meet any of the criteria there. He may do some day! But not today.
Can I ask what your relationship to Hayden is? Qcne (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 2 June 2024 review of submission by Rockkeeper

My submission was rejected as being "blank". I don't know what is required or how to correct the issue.

Thanks, in advance! Rockkeeper (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rockkeeper. Your draft was blank with no content, so cannot be reviewed for hopefully obvious reasons. You need to actually write text in order for a draft to be considered for review. Qcne (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper: it is blank. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I do not know where to type the information, I typed it in the sandbox and it was visible to me. Rockkeeper (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper I see now "A Journey through Avery County's Tie River Valley and Western North Carolina, from "The Ledgers of Sunny Brook", by James Myron Houston - Google "My Maps" in the sandbox. If that is what you typed and all that you typed, then it is insufficient to be an article. We do not know what the topic is, not what makes it notable 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I do not intend for it to be a self standing "article". It is just an addition of historical map information to the "external links" portion in Winkipedia's information about "Avery County - North Carolina" Rockkeeper (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper Wikipedia only accepts article which stand on their own merits, and whch pass our strict acceptance criteria. Perhaps you need a blog instead? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but no blog. I just wanted to contribute the map information, so the local history of the area might not be lost. I appreciate your time and feedback, as I, in reading the information contained on Winkipedia, did not understand that "edit" does not include the ability to contribute information, unless it was an article that "stands on it's own merits". Rockkeeper (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper "edit" allows you to edit anything you feel you can add value to. "Submit"or equivalent words allow you to save the edit. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockkeeper Light dawns. I think you were attempting to edit Avery County, North Carolina. If what you hope to add is a valid addition there is nothing to prevent your adding it in the correct place 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do not know where the "correct place" is available to place the edit. Aftwr working in the sandbox, I tried editing it on the "external links" Avery County site, as my edit contains the link to the interactive Google map. That edit was removed for some reason or I did not submit it correctly. I will continue to look for the proper place. Thanks! 65.188.73.11 (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 3

02:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by 154.91.163.41

Please create this article thank you sir 154.91.163.41 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected and will not be considered further. None of the sources are usable, and the draft is promotional in tone. Please see WP:NBIO and H:YFA. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:05, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet

So I submitted lot's of article draft for review,which were abandoned by authors.One of them was Draft:Don Bosco College Panjim but it got rejected.I checked on internet,it was good presence and notability but I don't know how to include it.There are 8 references,But I am seeking a great editor who can help protect that abandoned draft,as I am not good at this. Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet: this wasn't "abandoned", it had been rejected. Rejected drafts cannot be resubmitted, hence why I rejected it again.
Why are you going around submitting drafts that you've (presumably?) had no involvement in? Did you think we don't have enough work with over 3,000 pending drafts?
And would you mind explaining your username, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing I've added them to this SPI. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi: haha, beat me to it while I was making coffee! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the fastest man alive. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you part of Gloss Media,specializing in Wikipedia articles,I got a message when the article was rejected Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell us a bit more about this "Gloss Media"? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got this message from them
Gloster Media Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Ritesh Kumar, representing IDIGITALAKKI MEDIA Pvt. Ltd. Where we specialize in Wikipedia moderation. We noticed that your Wikipedia page submission was recently rejected. We're here to help you with that. If you're interested, please let us know. Thanks & Regards, Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet this is a scam. Please ignore the message and report it to Wikimedia by following the instructions at WP:SCAM. Qcne (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was so such rejected tag when I came across the article. Noblesse Oblige Siock Puppet (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there wasn't, was there? Because someone removed all the tags. Funny that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:32, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

Hello! I submitted a reviewed version of the current article, but none of the changes show up. Kamila Fomin (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamila Fomin Instead of editing your sandbox, please edit Draft:Daniel Druhora. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: are you talking about User:Kamila Fomin/sandbox or Draft:Daniel Druhora? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing the draft Daniel Druhora. However, after I published them, I can not see them. Kamila Fomin (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kamila Fomin: are you talking about those IMDb citations? They were removed in this edit. IMDb is user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable; it is pointless to cite it – see WP:IMDB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Jatingarg9368

Plese suggest what should I do to get it uploaded. Jatingarg9368 (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jatingarg9368 It's completely unreadable and has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. There is random text in all caps all over the place, references formatted poorly, and the only readable parts are promotional. Is there a coordinated effort to create these Indian regiment articles? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...or is there, as was suggested by Secretlondon, user/-s registering multiple accounts from which to submit these drafts? This question has now been asked several times, in several places, but never answered (AFAICT). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think we know. There’s a comment on one of them that they were asked to make it by someone more senior. Secretlondon (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so now. We don’t know if it is one person, or being organised by the military themselves. One comment suggests that it might be run from a military HQ. Secretlondon (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would #17:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by GokulChristo be related to this? Formatting looks similar and it's on an Indian military regiment. If it is, this might be something we may need to bring up somewhere given the nexus to a contentious topic (Indian Subcontinent). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:01, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Savannahhannah

I resubmitted with requested changes in March, and I don't see that it has been either accepted or rejected again. Savannahhannah (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Savannahhannah: this draft shows the most recent submission date as 2 May. We currently have a backlog of over 3,000 drafts awaiting review. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Kalinators

Hello. My article has been declined twice due to apparently not having reliable sources. This is clearly not true as I have posted the pages confirming each statement. After I asked at the Teahouse, I was told that all details in biographical articles need to have a reliable source, however, the article I used to refer from, while writing mine, has only 2 sources, none of them about any detail, and both of them being a dead link. Please confirm this for yourself below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Vischjager

This is why I insist that my article has, indeed, sufficient and clear reliable sources provided, regardless of the fact it is about myself. If you deem any part of the article is not neutral, please go ahead and edit it. However, declining it due to "not reliable sources" is simply incorrect. Or if it would be correct, please specify which information is missing a reliable source.

Thank you! Kalinators (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalinators: oh, but it is true. YouTube and Blogspot are user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable. The WBIF ranking is just that. So what you're left with is two cites of the billard-stuttgar.de website, which may or may not be reliable (my guess is not), but in any case it alone isn't enough to verify the contents, let alone to establish notability per WP:GNG (which wasn't the reason why this draft was declined, but I'm mentioning it anyway as it's pertinent). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, what is the WBIF ranking? It is an official federation's results. What can be more reliable than that? YouTube is just showing the final that was live streamed and it is as an addition. "Blogpost", as you call it, is not a blog, but once again an official tournament's page with an article about the tournament. You can also see pictures with the trophy there, which for an unknown reason I was not allowed to upload.
The billiard pages are just confirming that the club is the oldest in Germany. They do not reference anything about myself. But to call them non-reliable is complete ignorance and nonsense, considering it is (1) an official club's webpage and (2) used as a reference under another article in wikipedia.
You call the references "user-generated", what is not user-generated? Every page on the internet has been created by someone. Every news article has been created by someone.
All this comes up in my mind as you being completely biased against the article for an unknown reason. If you open the page of Philip Vischjager, you can clearly see that it contains information that cannot be verified and both its sources are dead.
Compare this to my article where I have multiple different sources confirming each and every statement. Can you see the difference? Kalinators (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing tagging you to make sure you get this... I am looking forward to your next, less biased, reply.
Thanks in advance Kalinators (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: how can I be "biased against the article"? I didn't decline it. I'm only trying to explain why it was declined. However, I can only explain, I cannot understand it for you.
Please review WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:USERGENERATED.
What I didn't mention before, but am mentioning now, is that three of the YT links are to a channel called 'The Kalinator himself' (presumably you?), and one to 'JediMasterBG'. Can you explain to me how much editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc. these channels apply to their content? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing You can be biased against it by assuming that it was rightfully declined. Simple psychology.
I said youtube is an addition. And it just confirms that the events were true. Yes, the Kalinator's channel is me, as stated in the article itself: "This is the name of his Youtube channel". JediMaster was doing commentary on that final, linked.
When you look at the WBIF link, however, it shows that the final of the WBIF world youth championship 2023 was contested between Kalin Stefanov (me) and Yuta Takimiya, and won by the latter, as stated in the article. What can prove more that a sport event happened, than the federation organising it's official website?
When you look at the Geneva Open post, it says what happened in the 18th (!!) Geneva Open, and confirms the statement. Once again, what else can prove it more than that?
How are my references less reliable than the references under Philip Vischjager's page, where both references are a dead link and, respectively, none proves any truthfulness?
And for the third time in this message:
What else can prove more that the events did happen than what is already posted? Kalinators (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below which will shed some light. I've tagged the Philip_Vischjager article as perhaps not being notable. Qcne (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators Wikipedia is a volunteer project and, unfortunately, has many tens of thousands of poor quality articles that no one has gotten around to improving or deleting yet. I would not have accepted Philip_Vischjager if it came through AfC today. That article was created in 2006(!) when our standards were more lax.
We certainly don't want to be adding more poor quality articles to the project.
What we need for your draft is at least three sources that meet the following criteria:
- provide significant coverage of Kalin, not just a passing mention.
- are independent of Kalin, not from his own website or team's website or an interview.
- are from reliable places, not random bloggers or forums. Qcne (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne I assume by "random bloggers or forums" you mean the Geneva Open. This is more than insulting to an established backgammon event that has been held almost the entire century, 18 years as stated above. Additionally, that does not provide "a passing mention", but a review of the tournament which states that Kalin (me) has won it, also with a photo of Kalin (me) with the trophy.
"His team's website" is used to provide evidence that the club is indeed the oldest pool-billiards club in Germany. It is not used to verify Kalin's identity or whatever, just to verify that the club is the oldest in Germany. Below you can see Kalin's profile in the state pool association, which I deemed unnecessary, as Kalin's (mine) main successes are in backgammon:
https://billard-bvbw.de/verein-mitglied-statistiken.php?p=999%7C%7C%7C2497%7C%7C368372
The WBIF website does, once again, prove the factuality of the events, and it is, apparently, NOT Kalin's or his team's. After clicking on Kalin's name under the tournament, you can see his (mine) profile, which shows his (mine) results in all WBIF tournaments:
https://www.wbif.net/index.php?nav_id=41&tn1_id=4064
Below is the German Backgammon Federation's ranking, where unfortunately Kalin (me) is not up to the top, because only recently he started participating more in ranking tournaments. However, when you use Ctrl+F and type "Stefanov, Kalin", you can see his presence on the list:
https://bgverband.de/ranglisten/live/alphaliste Kalinators (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators Please do not assume anything, my "random bloggers or forums" comment is my go-to phrase when replying to anyone about reliable sources.
You seem a bit distressed about this, which is why we actually heavily discourage writing about yourself on Wikipedia as tensions can run high and it is very difficult to remain unbiased.
I will go through your sources one by one:
  1. WBIF: obviously not independent as it is the organisation that runs the tournaments. It can be used to cite your scores, but doesn't contribute to notability.
  2. A YouTube Channel, user generated, and does not prove notability as it is just a recording of your match.
  3. Your YouTube Channel so obviously isn't independent.
  4. billard-stuttgart: can be used to cite you are a member, but doesn't provide notability.
  5. As above.
  6. Your YouTube Channel again.
  7. As above.
  8. Blogspot: we don't consider blogs reliable unless they are written by a subject matter expert. I won't pass any judgement on this blog in particular, it does mention you twice but doesn't quite provide the significant coverage we are looking for.
As such, you do not pass the notability requirements for sportspeople and do not merit an article on Wikipedia yet. You may at some point in the future, but we would encourage you not to write about yourself, and let a volunteer interested in Backgammon write about you if you become notable.
Let me know if that helps and if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like to assume when something is not clear. Thanks for clearing it up.
I am not distressed about this, I am only trying to show you why my page has a place on wikipedia. And, again - if you see anything biased, feel free to edit it before posting.
1. How doesn't it contribute to notability? It is the sole world backgammon internet federation and the link posted proofs that what happened is true.
2. As I said, this is just a reference to the match itself, under the sentence "This match can be watched 'there'.
3. Of course not independent. It is not there to prove that the events happened, of course anyone can create a video about that with events that didn't happen. It is, once again, there to prove different things (look more carefully under which sentences the links for my channel are)
4-and-5: I posted these to prove that the club is the oldest in Germany as written. One of the links I took straight out of the club's Wiki Page in German. So, if it is a valid source there, it is a valid source here too.
8. I posted it as it is the official source for that tournament. I could also provide the newspage under the Swiss Backgammon Assosiation website, if that would be deemed more reliable:
https://www.swissbackgammon.ch/
It is just the first thing that shows up, but in French.
I hope we will eventually come to the conclusion that the page has its place on Wikipedia. I believe not many people in the world are world youth 2nd placed in anything and this, alone, makes me notable enough. Kalinators (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned, we follow the guidelines on WP:NSPORT. They key bit being:
A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject
The sources you have provided do not meet that criteria, it is as simple as that.
It is very impressive that you are 2nd place! But impressiveness does not contribute to notability, unfortunately. Qcne (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: this is a pointless argument, the sources cited in this draft are simply not sufficient to verify the information, let alone to establish notability. That's about the short and the long of it.
You also shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place, even with a COI disclosure in place; please see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing OK, I will ask the same question that Mr. Qcne was unable to answer to: What can verify a sport event better than the federation organiser's official website?
Remove "federation" from that sentence and ask that same question about the Geneva Open.
As this question was tactically ignored, I still consider that you both clearly see that the information is true.
I already have read the conditions of writing about myself and followed them neatly. It clearly says it is not forbidden, but discouraged, which is a different thing. I could have asked a friend to do it for me, but it doesn't change a thing. I have not used one hypeful word in the article and instead, only stated factual events with the sufficient evidence provided. Kalinators (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Kalinators. I didn't ignore the question, just missed it. Sorry about that. I will answer it now. (one could suggest you have ignored my review of your existing sources above...)
You are correct that a primary source is often the best thing to verify an event! That is not in dispute.
However we need to establish notability first. That is the question at play here. So far there is no evidence you pass our special criteria of notability as defined here. Qcne (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QcneI just finished my answer to your message above. Thanks for replying to that now too. Can you please specify what the "criteria of notability" are? The article you link doesn't seem to be too clear about it. Afterwards, I will gladly provide you with whatever would be required for that to be achieved Kalinators (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just replied above, apologies we are cross-talking over each other. One of the downside of asynchronous communication.
But to reiterate, the key bit you need to understand is:
A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject
The sources you have provided do not meet that criteria, it is as simple as that.
It is very impressive that you are 2nd place! But impressiveness does not contribute to notability, unfortunately. Qcne (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I understand correctly, you are asking for newspapers writing about the events? Kalinators (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be newspapers. To prove notability we need sources that are independent of the event/you, are reliable (ideally have editorial control), and provide significant coverage. That could be newspapers, sports magazines, reliable sports websites, etc. Qcne (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. In this case, the Swiss Backgammon Association is a perfect one: It is independent of the event in Geneva (is just that the event is part of its calender) and under news posts about the Geneva Open:
https://www.swissbackgammon.ch/
I believe I heard about one or two local bulgarian having an article after that too. I am currently on the look for them. As soon as I find them, will it be sufficient if I post them as a reply to this thread? Kalinators (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got a direct link to the association article? Qcne (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This link opens the main news page. The first post is about the tournament in Geneva, it is in French though so you may require to translate it.
The paragraph that starts with "Le 18e Open de Genève de Backgammon" Kalinators (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got it. It's a start. We'd usually require three or more sources to prove notability, similar to that. Qcne (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Cheers. I just found another one: https://www.bta.bg/bg/news/sport/682772-balgarin-specheli-prestizhen-turnir-po-sportna-tabla-v-zheneva#%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B0
It's in Bulgarian, here again I recommend using translation. For context, a friend of mine told me about that a few days after the tournament an now I remembered and looked it up. The BTA ("Bulgarian Telegraph Agency") is a national news agency for all spheres. In the website it has all topics like politics, economics, etc. Sport is one of them where this article is.
I did not look it up in the first place because I was interpreting the references as something that proves the event did exist.
So now we have two which means we need one more? I believe I heard of at least another similar Bulgarian agency or news-provider posting about it. I will try looking it up in the next few hours. Kalinators (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators that is a better article, and the kind of thing we're looking for. @DoubleGrazing, thoughts? Qcne (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We need three like this, and then the draft needs to be rewritten by summarising what such sources have said (so that they can actually be cited as sources), and we might have a viable draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne @DoubleGrazing
Here's another one: https://www.iskra.bg/balgarinat-kalin-stefanov-kalinatora-stana-shampion-na-zheneva-oupan/
I'm currently on the look for more. But @Qcne did approve the swiss association post yesterday, so I assume we have the three required now?
If that's the case, could I ask one of you to edit the draft in the required way citing everything the right way, etc?
If someone would take this up, it would be nice if the youtube links to the final and my review of the world youth championship could be kept, even if not under the "sources" part.
Please keep me updated
Thanks Kalinators (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, the Swiss Backgammon Association is a primary source, which does not count towards WP:GNG. And in any case, that piece on their home page only makes a passing mention of you, whereas we need to see significant coverage. So by my count we need one more solid source.
As for editing the draft, I can't speak for others, but I for one won't be doing that, as our role is to review drafts, not get involved in co-creating them. You might find someone at one of the WikiProjects, eg. the Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games, interested in doing this; you can ask on the project's talk page, if you wish. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Well, if you go back a little, yesterday @Qcne did say that the swiss association is okay: "Thanks, got it. It's a start. We'd usually require three or more sources to prove notability, similar to that." They aren't the *organiser* of the event, just *report* on it. I don't know what a primary source means in this context. As to only having a passive mention of me, I don't think that being on the sole picture in that report and having my name mentioned as "champion" is a psssive mention, it just reports the events of the tournament and is not an article created for hyping me. Anyway, I'm looking forward to @Qcne's comment on that too.
In the meantime I'm still on the look for further news providers' articles which would solve the problem completely.
If you couldn't help me with the draft, that's alright, I hope you could at least provide me with clear guidelines under which it should be written, similarly to how Q provided me with the guidelines on the sources yesterday and then I could look in a more specific area knowing what's to be looked for in detail.
Cheers Kalinators (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators iskra-bg works. Both that and bta are better than the backhgammon sources, so let me know if you find a third one? Qcne (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Alright. I'll send here once I've found one Kalinators (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI this thread may auto-archive soon, but you can always msg me on my User Talk page. Qcne (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Qcne,
I ran upon another. However, it looks like it's taken straight from iskra (same text). Don't know if that's valid. Have a look please:
https://novini247.com/novini/balgarin-uspya-da-specheli-mejdunarodno-sastezanie-po-sportna-tabla-negovoto_7956545.html Kalinators (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kalinators. Yeah, we'd need sources that are independent of each other unfortunately which are not just regurgitating the same text. Qcne (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: primary sources, such as associations and other similar organisations, do not establish notability per WP:GNG.
Also, when you say "writing about the events", it's important to bear in mind that if you're trying to show that you are notable, the coverage (or at least enough of it to be "significant") must be about you, not just about an event where you have played. Routine tournament reporting and similar coverage is unlikely to suffice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalinators: I wonder if what's confusing you is that this draft was declined for lack of reliable sources, rather than lack of notability? Because I can tell you that even if all those sources you're citing were judged to be reliable (which they're not), they provide zero evidence of notability, and the draft would still be declined, just for a slightly broader (and also more fundamental) reason. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:14, 3 June 2024 review of submission by DryasRap

Enlighten me on the requirements for a wikipedia new article! DryasRap (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DryasRap. Please read the requirements for musicians here. You also should not be writing about yourself. Qcne (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was "legal" to do, sorry about that (also a way to just tell more)
Is there a way I could get someone to do it? Or (being honest) I'm just still not as relevant as for having an article? DryasRap (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DryasRap: you could (not saying you should, but could) get someone else to write it for you. They would need to disclose their conflict of interest, and possibly paid-editing. And even then, they would be subject to the same notability, verifiability, etc. requirements as anyone else.
It's usually best to wait until you become so notable (which is probably what you refer to ask 'relevant') that someone entirely unconnected to you, and without any prompting or encouragement by you, writes an article about you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't notable, someone is bound to write an article about you eventually. If you aren't, then no article should be written. Please don't use Wikipedia to attempt to make yourself notable; we don't care about what you want to write about yourself, we care only what significant coverage has been written about you by independent reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not pay anyone to write an article, that is often a scam. If you become notable at some point in the future, someone will eventually write an article about you. Qcne (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No no! I would never pay someone for that, I'm just still learning about everything (as wikipedia as art itself).
Sorry for the inconvenience, I didn't mean to disrupt anything, and thanks for the info! I really apreciate it! 181.117.29.234 (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:20, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Dr pangloss

I had some questions about citations:

1) If I mention something that has a very detailed wiki page with 50+ citations. Like "This guy lived here, and he did this thing". Is linking to his wiki page not good enough? Do I have to grab references from his page and bring them over to the page mentioning him or is linking good enough?

2) I have noticed that the initial paragraph intro on wiki articles doesn't often have lots of citations, because it's a general overview of the page, which has details and citations. Is this correct? It feels better for a link in the overview to an anchor/div in the subsection with details and citations, but I haven't seen this a lot.

I care a lot about citations, which is why I am asking. Thank you, Dr pangloss (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dr pangloss. Good questions!
1) You can use WP:WIKILINKS to link to other articles, but it's always worth reusing references from existing articles if they are specifically applicable to your draft.
2) Check out WP:LEAD - we don't expect many citations here.
For your draft, what we are looking for is evidence of notability criteria matching WP:NPLACE. I think Oberlin Village is likely notable, but I'd want to either see every statement cited or uncited statements removed (sometimes a shorter article is better than an overly detailed but poorly sourced one).
Be careful you're not adding any original research which isn't allowed. For example the 20th Century and Beyond section is unsourced and seems to be original research: I would remove it. Qcne (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dr pangloss:
  1. You have to cite those sources in the article in which you're hoping to rely on them; it isn't enough to link to another article that has them, because that article might not be there tomorrow, or those sources could have been removed.
  2. The Lead section does not need to be supported with referencing, if everything it says is supported elsewhere. But if you make a statement in the lead which doesn't appear elsewhere and which requires an inline citation to support it (say, a person's DOB), then it must be referenced in the lead.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I wasn't just talking about this one! Agreed, some sections use the same source, like the 50 page NC Historical review, i can sprinkle that citation with page numbers. Dr pangloss (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Twinkle1990

User:Hildreth gazzard in this diff raised that the subject passes WP:GNG. Per WP:NCRIC and other notability guidelines for a cricketer, I am hesitant as the subject played only two FC and one LA. I declined the submission first but reverted and left to some CRICK experts for review. However, being an AFC reviewer I wanted to know whether that draft was acceptable? Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Twinkle1990: I'm sceptical that it does. Discounting the statline source (too sparse) and the GC3 sources (connexion to subject), all others are match recaps or contract signings, nothing really out-of-the-ordinary. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:59, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Brolin26

Why is it that I cannot create this article/page for my self? Brolin26 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brolin26: Because you are unlikely to write neutrally. You also have zero sources, which is unacceptable for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this reply automatically or someone using zero logic? What do you mean with zero sources? I'm the person whom I'm writing for myself. Who would write with better sources than myself, or with neutrally? Brolin26 (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brolin26: No, this is a manual reply from someone who understands Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project that hard-requires sources with no connexion to the subject, especially when writing about living people. We absolutely cannot accept "just trust me, bro" as a source, especially from a subject who may have an incentive to lie about themselves or otherwise omit pertinent details. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Than I think you should make some research before deciding into something if it's false or true. Anyway it was a waist of time for me now maybe next will be easier for both of us, take care. Brolin26 (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by GokulChristo

We being the original source of information. Being 207 Field Regiment ourselves. Our content is being declined. Stating that not being from reliable source. And we being the only source available in the world. GokulChristo (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GokulChristo: We do not accept the subject themselves as a reliable source. If the regiment is "the only source available in the world" on itself, then we can't even discuss a potential article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Xeimen129

can you help me with my reliability with sources because my article keeps getting declined IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeimen129: your draft cites sources that confer no notability. You need to find ones that meet the WP:GNG standard, and not just one but multiple (=3+) thereof. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Xeimen129. Steam is not independent, and the reviews are not reliable. Play store webpages are not independent.
We need game journalism websites. Qcne (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 4

02:01, 4 June 2024 review of submission by 110.174.214.94

referencing and being declined 110.174.214.94 (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in a top-level or international game no longer guarantees notability (as of Feb 2022), and playing in U## squads never has. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 02:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:41, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Guapmachine6

Help improving the draft GuapMachine (talk) 03:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why it kept getting rejected GuapMachine (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guapmachine6 the draft was not rejected, but declined (rejected means cannot be resubmitted) for not meeting notability guidelines. Almost none of the sources are usable: we cannot cite other Wikis, Bing search results, nor his bio on websites of companies he has worked for. What it needs is reliable sources that are independent of the subject. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay, thank you I would try to improve it. GuapMachine (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:07, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Chanan12

I request assistance because my previous submission was rejected due to formatting and content issues.

I have revised the article to focus on Chanan Zevin's key achievements and contributions, removing unnecessary sections to meet Wikipedia's guidelines.

However, I seek guidance to ensure that the updated article aligns with Wikipedia's verifiability, neutrality, and notability standards.

Your expertise will help refine the article to provide accurate and relevant information about Chanan Zevin's professional background and accomplishments. 

Chanan12 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12 The draft was rejected for being promotional and will not be considered further. And why are you referring to yourself in third person? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12: Your sources are four interviews (connexion to subject), his company's website (connexion to subject), and his LinkedIn (connexion to subject). We can cite none of them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 05:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanan12, also the draft is simply an autobiography (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). I have helped you run a WP:BEFORE and found 'your article's isn't notable. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:43, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Helena.leijone

I need assistance on how to amend my article to be approved.

Thank you! Helena.leijone (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helena.leijone I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Please see the advice left on your draft by reviewers, and also see the links left by them for more information. If you have specific questions, please ask here. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Much appreciated! Helena.leijone (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 4 June 2024 review of submission by 185.247.174.153

The comment justifying rejection is "Several claims are unsourced. Some references are primary." Can the editor be more specific? It would be helpful to know which statements ("claims") in this extensively referenced draft need further support. Some of the basic demographic information does of course come from professional autobiographies created by the subject. I'm not sure what "primary" means in this context (or why secondary sources are preferred, given that by definition they are derived from primary material). Thanks. 185.247.174.153 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Twinkle1990 Qcne (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Editor,
I've pinged the declining review. I would say that for biographies of living people we require every fact, starting with the date of birth, to be referenced. I note there are quite a few unsourced paragraphs throughout.
You also have a couple of external links in the body of the text, which you should convert to in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the reviewer, but I'll gladly do that homework. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):
  • "Voas was born in Evanston, Illinois in 1928." - Source? (Since I see no indication in the article that Voas is dead, everything a reasonable person could challenge must be referenced; "Subject told me" and "just trust me, bro" are not acceptable sources.)
  • "He studied at the University of Chicago (earning a [..bachelor of philosophy degree in 1946)[...]" - Source?
  • "[...A]nd subsequently at UCLA, where he obtained BA and MA degrees in psychology and a PhD in experimental psychology in 1953." - Source?
  • "When the Korean War started, Voas accepted a commission in the US Navy..." - Source?
  • "Following a year at the U.S. Navy Electronics Laboratory (1954) as a Research Associate[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]Voas was assigned to the Navy Research Center, School of Aviation Medicine, at Pensacola, Florida (1955-57)." - Source?
  • "Voas moved to the Navy Medical Research Center in Bethesda, Maryland (1957-58), where he headed the Behavioral Research Branch." - Source?
  • "He worked for Captain Norman Lee Barr[...]" - Source? We also do not allow external links in the body of the text, so the link here needs removed.
  • Most of the paragraph after the above seems out of place here and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme.
  • "Because Captain Barr was the Navy’s leading expert in high-altitude medicine and Lieutenant Voas was his principal assistant, Voas was transferred to the space program." - Source?
  • "Voas joined NACA in September 1958[...]" Source?
  • "Voas became the Head Astronaut Training Officer." - Source?
  • "As part of the Space Task Group, Voas helped conceptualize the criteria for the selection of the original seven astronauts for Project Mercury." - Source?
  • The rest of the paragraph after the above is, again, out of place and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme.
  • "Voas became the Training Officer for Project Mercury and Assistant to the Director of the Manned Spacecraft Center." - Source?
  • The rest of the paragraph after the above is, again, out of place and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme. Drafts need to be laser-foocused on their subject. Short tangents to help provide context as to his work are okay. Victor Hugo-esque filibusters to describe the sewers of Paris are not.
  • "Many years later, Voas received the W. Randolph Lovelace Award for Significant Contribution to Aerospace Medicine." - Source?
  • The rest of the paragraph preceding the above is, again, out of place and would fit more in an article on the history of the USA's space programme.
  • "...Voas joined [the NHTSA] in 1968." - Source?
  • "Voas served as NHTSA’s manager of the Alcohol Safety Research program and as Deputy Director, Evaluator, and Chief Scientist for the $88 million federal ASAP initiative..." - Source? (It doesn't matter if the source at the end of the paragraph has this information, it has to be cited at this spot as well.)
  • "A working group headed by Voas..." - This paragraph could likely be merged with the previous one.
  • "In 1969... Voas introduced the first handheld fuel-cell breath-test devices to the United States[...]" - Source?
  • "[...Voas] managed the development of national standards for evidential breath-test devices..." - Source?
  • "He also prepared the first scientific paper on alcohol safety interlocks (1969)[...]" - Source?
  • "Voas was influential in guiding Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the major lobbying group, toward evidence-based policy positions." - Source?
  • "Voas was a member of the MADD National Board from 1982 to 1993 and served as an advisor to the Vice President and later to the President of MADD." - Source?
  • "He was subsequently appointed to the MADD National Advisory Committee." - Source?
  • "After leaving government service in 1982[...]" - Source?
  • "[...]Voas was a senior research scientist with the National Public Service Research Institute[...]" - Source?
  • "He served as the Principal Investigator on more than two dozen research contracts for the Department of Transportation (DOT), including several national studies of various sanctions (jail, treatment, vehicle impoundment and forfeiture, and interlocks) for impaired-driving offenders." - Source?
  • "He conducted studies for NHTSA on the effectiveness of a number of types of alcohol safety legislation[...]" - Each and every part of the listing that follows needs to be sourced.
  • "He also was the Principal Investigator for the 1996 National Roadside Survey." - Source?
  • "He was subsequently Principal Investigator on grants..." - Again, each and every part of the listing that follows needs to be sourced.
  • "Voas and colleagues evaluated the impact..." - Redundant with above, 86 this.
  • "Voas was President of ICADTS from 1989 to 1992." - Source? And, again, external link needs to go.
  • "Voas married Carolyn Merry, who was also at UCLA, in 1953." - Source?
  • Omit the names of the kids unless they are themselves notable.
  • The Bibliography section is useless as is.
Take a look at the list above, see what sources you already have that can be re-used for that claim and what ones you will need to find a better source for. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @User:185.247.174.153. I declined the draft after examining it. After Qcne (talk) and Jéské Couriano's reply, I don't think I need to provide more explanation regarding the decline. Furthermore, I am curious to know how you know the subject person? As you are not the page contributor, I want to know whether you have read about WP:COI and WP:UPE? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 4 June 2024 review of submission by 83.110.196.247

I have directed this film titled "Irani". It is a Tamil Feature film yet to be released. The lead artists are Raj Kumar (Tamil) and Jayani Weerasinghe. This is a movie from Sri lanka. The poster has been released by actor Vijay sethupathi. I have worked in a movie titled "Varnam" as a co-producer. What else should I add to get this approved? 83.110.196.247 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has no content, IP editor. Please see the criteria at WP:NFILM. If it has yet to be released it is likely not yet notable for Wikipedia. You also should not be writing about a film you have directed yourself, as that is a conflict of interest. Qcne (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are trying to create an article about a film that you are making indicates that your purpose here is almost certainly promotion, i.e. telling the world about something. Promotion is not accepted anywhere on Wikipedia.
Once the world has noticed your film, in the form of substantial write-ups in reliable sources from people unconnected with you, there could be an article about it. But the article will summarise what those independent sources say, not what you want to say. ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:37, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Peakconquerors

Help me posting my content Peakconquerors (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peakconquerors: - This has the exact same issues as two drafts on Indian military regiments that were brought up here yesterday. See #12:10, 3 June 2024 review of submission by Jatingarg9368 and #17:28, 3 June 2024 review of submission by GokulChristo. If your superior officers are ordering you to do this, show them WP:Conflict of interest and WP:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peakconquerors who is asking you to post this article? Qcne (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:41, 4 June 2024 review of submission by Qunain

i am requesting an assistance because i wrote an article but it was declined. i need someone to help me that how can i make perfect article for wiki. and how should i publish. need support. Qunain (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Qunain. Wikipedia articles should be summaries of reliable sources that are ideally secondary to the subject. Your draft cites a single source, which is the The Geneva Association itself, therefore not independent.
We're looking for secondary sources that have no connection to the The Geneva Association that discuss this topic. Qcne (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qunain: Your draft is illegible and has only one source (which I haven't yet looked at). One source by itself, no matter how good it is, cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qunain: Your one source is a circular reference. We don't cite Wikipedia. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 5

08:15, 5 June 2024 review of submission by David.G.82.21

Draft:Top Goal Scorers of the National Futsal Series and National Futsal League

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

Hi Umakant Bhalerao as per comment above, I've been reading again the guide Wikipedia reliable sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) and wikipedia referencing for beginners (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners). I've checked the draft mentioned above (Top Goal Scorers of the National Futsal Series and National Futsal League) and the references I've used are from the oficial website of the FA Futsal England, where any future lector of the article can go to and verify the stats of each player per season. Could you please advise me how can be improved my referencing to meet your expectations? if you could chose an example from the draft and let me know with an example, I could use it as a template guide to fix the other ones that are not up to the level of the criteria.

Thanks in advance David David.G.82.21 (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Umakant Bhalerao Qcne (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for the reviewer to come and hopefully answer the author's question, can I just say that IMO this draft is not written in an encyclopaedic manner, but rather as an essay or exposition of some sort (with quite a promotional feel to it, too, especially in what comes to this Maroto chap), and therefore will require quite comprehensive editing. That would also provide an opportunity to ensure that the content is based firmly on what reliable and independent published sources have said about this topic, avoiding any original research or synthesis, polemic, and promotionality. In other words, I would have also declined this, but probably for different reasons (essay, POV). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @David.G.82.21 for reaching out to the help desk and Qcne for pinging me. I completely concure with DoubleGrazing's analysis. This draft is not written in an encyclopedic style; instead, it comes across more like an essay or exposition. It's pushing NFL and NFS, especially Alejandro Maroto. Some of the content in the draft is not backed by sources and I was unable to verify certain information from the sources provided. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Its content must be written from a neutral perspective and should summarize information from secondary reliable sources. Also after reviewing your draft, it seems like you might have a conflict of interest with the subject which should be disclosed on your userpage as per WP:COI. I would also suggest you take a look at WP:1ST for some general tips on how to write and format a proper Wikipedia article.
Feel free to reach out if you have any questions, either here or on my talk page.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:22, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Hamimuzzamann

why my bio get rejected Hamimuzzamann (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamimuzzamann the draft has no reliable sources (your facebook page isn't reliable), is promotional in tone, and is poorly formatted. Ideally you shouldn't be writing about yourself anyway. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:46, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Alexendrew

I seek assistance to publish an article on Md. Tusar Akon, a notable textile engineer and researcher. His innovations in dyeing technology, including cost-effective nylon pretreatment methods and AI-automated processes, have significantly advanced the industry. As a lecturer at BUFT, he mentors future engineers and promotes sustainable practices. His achievements, including the Dean’s Award from BUTEX and recognition in sustainable chemical management, underscore his impact. His work is well-documented on ORCID (0000-0002-2791-5329) and Google Scholar. Alexendrew (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexendrew: Given the tone of your request, it's not surprising the draft itself was deleted as blatant promotion. What is your connexion to Akon? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Md. Tusar Akon is a notable public figure and researcher. The article is intended to provide verifiable, neutral information about his contributions. I will revise it to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s standards. Please allow the draft to be improved instead of deleted. Alexendrew (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandrew: The draft was deleted by the time of my first reply above. If you want to see if an administrator is willing to undelete it for you, you can try your luck at WP:Requests for undeletion - but they're very likely going to ask about your connexion to Akon, and you're not going to be able to dodge that question again. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:17, 5 June 2024 review of submission by TriosLosDios

The reason I'm asking for assistance is due to new building and address or location Re: Santa_Rosa_County_Florida Courthouse. When I was very brand new on WP I attempted to correct (the issue) by creating 'a new article'. What is the correct way to implement such a task ? TriosLosDios (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:5. Further, I would like to ask you about your own talk page edits per diff, diff and much more? What you have done is WP:NOT. -- Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:58, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Coubrough, James

I need reliable sources but I don't know what qualifies as reliable. Coubrough, James (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, James. We have a whole list of perennial reliable sources that you can look over. Happy editing! Blueskiesdry (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Namnatulco

I recently moved this article from its' draft space, because I was unaware of the draft-mechanism (having not edited Wikipedia much in the past years). Most of what I did to the draft article is provide a translation from the German Wikipedia article (in condensed form and closer to what I perceive to conform to English Wikipedia style). I just read Wikipedia:Articles for creation and since I'm not sure whether I technically count as a new editor (having less than 500 contributions and officially no access to the article translation feature), so I wanted to check that I didn't violate any editing rules. Namnatulco (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namnatulco: Your third paragraph in the "Biography" section lacks sources. I'd also replace the "sharp S" symbol with "ss" where his name appears in the body of the text. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano: Thanks! I'll chase down good sources and/or trim this part accordingly.
As a rule of thumb, is it generally OK to translate pages (that meet the English Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion) even without access to the content translation tool? (this is the part I was particularly unsure about) Namnatulco (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content translation tool is just that - a tool. If you can translate it yourself without using it, we'll still accept it as long as the translation is accurate and written well. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Visegradjanin

Can you check now artical and see if is everything corect now. thanks Visegradjanin (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:04, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Misplaced Elf

Hi, I'm trying to add a page and it was just rejected for lacking reliable sources. The book I'm trying to create a page for is a legitimate published book, so I'm wondering what makes a source reliable, if not the book in question?

I'm confused about the reasons why it can't be added and not sure what makes the book itself an unreliable source. It's literally available for purchase on Amazon and was published March 1, 2024 with Philosopher's Stone Books, an imprint of Frequency 3 Media, LLC. Everything about it is legitimate.

So, would you mind explaining to me what sort of information or reliable sources are supposed to be included, to verify the existence of this book so that it can have a page on Wikipedia?

Thank you. Misplaced Elf (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Misplaced Elf: The subject is never a suitable source for itself. Are there any professional reviews or scholarly analyses of the book? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 06:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining that--I thought my reading of the guidelines was thorough, but I must have been looking in the wrong place.
The book is in the process of being reviewed by Kirkus. The extended review will be finished by the end of this month. Will one professional review be enough? (Eventually it will have more, but professional reviews can take a long time to acquire, from submission to completion, due to high demand.) Also, do its Library of Congress catalog file and Goodreads page count as reliable sources--they're not being used to say whether or not the book is "good", but just to account for its existence in the public sphere.
I appreciate your help! :) Misplaced Elf (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant notability guideline for books is WP:NBOOK, and more specifically WP:BOOKCRIT, which requires two or more non-trivial reviews or similar. (The alternative guideline, WP:GNG, requires "multiple" sources, which is usually interpreted as three or more.)
Can I ask, how do you know that a Kirkus review is in the pipeline, or that more reviews will be coming later? Do you have a real-life connection of some sort with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to ping @Misplaced Elf. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I have a connection: I'm the author. And before you say anything--yes, I'm aware that there's a conflict of interest, which I intend to disclose on my editor profile once a page for the book exists. I'm merely trying to create the page. If you are able to see the page in draft mode, you can see that I'm not trying to "sell" the book or do anything shady/self-serving. The stance on the page I'm attempting to create is entirely neutral, as it should be, and once the page exists I have no intention of editing it further, because it's not my place to do so. However, I now understand that it cannot have a page until it has enough independent reviews/articles to show that it has notoriety to warrant its own page. Thanks, Misplaced Elf (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misplaced Elf: No, you need to disclose now. You should have disclosed before you started the draft. This is a Terms of Use condition for Wikipedia and isn't negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano I apologize--I thought I could only disclose for an existing page. I will do so immediately. Thank you for explaining these terms. Misplaced Elf (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for disclosing, @Misplaced Elf, and now I can see that you had actually disclosed it earlier already, but removed the disclosure. Okay, we're back on track, and all's well that ends well, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Yes--when the page didn't get accepted, that's when I removed the disclosure. I misunderstood the way it worked, since I've never created a page before. Thank you for your patience! Cheers, Misplaced Elf (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Misplaced Elf: interesting, you're the second person today to tell me they thought the disclosure wasn't needed until the article is published. Can you tell me what might have led you to conclude that? Maybe there's some piece of text somewhere that we need to make clearer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Well, I can only speak for my own experience. When the disclosure box appeared and I clicked on "The Book of Jezebel" article I was disclosing my connection to, it took me to a page that said that article didn't exist. Since it didn't exist (and was declined when submitted) I made an incorrect assumption that I had to wait until the article was published. I can't say for sure that it's anything in the wording of the guidelines, though. It may have been my own misunderstanding and confusion, since it was late in the day when I was working on this.
My overall confusion came from all the different articles/sections on rules and guidelines--the amount of information was somewhat overwhelming, especially when I was in the midst of trying to create the page. The numerous guidelines were somewhat difficult to find. Many of them only came to my attention after other editors, such as yourself, provided the links in your replies to my queries.
It could simply be that I'm not used to using Wikipedia in this way, as an editor/creator. I am also slightly autistic, so while reading, research, and language are my strongest suits, navigating unfamiliar websites is challenging until I get used to their nuances. The learning curve is sharp, no doubt, so I just need more practice. (I often do best learning while doing, but this was more complex than I expected it to be. lol)
I don't know if my answer is helpful, but I hope it is in some way. :)
Cheers, Misplaced Elf (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Misplaced Elf, that is helpful, and appreciated, and I will try to look into the 'user journey' you refer to. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:25, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Peppertrout

I believe I have found the best references available online to write this bio, which is an obscure subject.

The references include Wikipedia sources, as well as genealogy and military history websites.

What is it exactly you require? I'm doing this in my spare time and can't easily go to a library that will have this information. Likely it will require a trip to Denver, 280 miles away for citations from publishes, papered sources. 

Peppertrout (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(merged) My draft was declined. I found excellent online references and included them with citations. Why was the draft declined? Peppertrout (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Question was answered at the Teahouse. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:15, 5 June 2024 review of submission by Carrot6290

Hello! I need help to formulate the article and to add sources and external links in a way that meets the Wikipedia criteria. I am aware that Patrick Levacic has contributed more than enough in Croatian chess community, but I am new to Wikipedia and cant find the best way to express the contributions with all the sources. Please, let me know if this is enough information or I should add more sources in order to make an article.

Regards Carrot6290 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrot6290: I repeat the answer I gave when you asked about this a week ago:

International Master is not enough to establish notability, WP:NCHESS would require the Grandmaster title instead. [...] Otherwise notability relies on the general WP:GNG guideline, which requires significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. This draft cites no such source.

Your draft cites only two sources, neither of which contribute anything towards GNG. If any of the sources listed in the 'See also' section (which isn't the right place for them, as that section can only include links to other Wikipedia articles, not external sources) and/or in the 'External links' section (which has too many links at the moment) can be used to establish notability, please cite them as references. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Carrot6290. The Wikipedia criteria for notability are generally about ensuring that there is enough independent reliable published material to base an article on. Remember that nothing written, published, commissioned, or based on the words of, the subject or their associates will contribute towards this: at best, they may be used to add some uncontroversial factual details (such as dates and locations) once an article is written.
It follows that until you have found several such independent sources, anything at all that you do towards creating an article could be time and effort wasted. ColinFine (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 6

Are these sources appropriate for establishing notability?

Hi there,

I'm working on an article about a company producing consumer flamethrowers (Draft:Throwflame_(company). It was rejected by a reviewer, but since the rejection there has been more media coverage. I added a few sources, and I was wondering if these sources are acceptable for supporting notability.

Basically I'm trying to understand if these sources affect the notability or not to know if I should bother submitting it for review again or not.

These are the sources:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/drone-flamethrower-can-shoot-110ft-32667708

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/04/24/thermonator-flame-throwing-robot-dog/73446898007/

https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/you-can-now-buy-a-flame-throwing-robot-dog-its-proof-common-sense-has-gone/article_ecb05aaa-0260-11ef-85cb-1f2235296f70.html

https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/23/thermonator-robot-dog-proves-americans-idea-self-defence-unhinged-20701164/

https://www.lanacion.com.ar/estados-unidos/asi-es-el-perro-robot-con-lanzallamas-que-se-vende-en-eeuu-por-menos-de-10000-dolares-nid25042024/

https://www.eleconomista.es/tecnologia/noticias/12785862/04/24/asi-es-thermonator-el-perro-robot-que-lanza-llamas-y-que-algunos-ven-como-el-futuro-de-la-seguridad.html

https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/mundo/perros-lanzallamas-empresa-pone-en-venta-a-sus-thermonator-en-eu/

https://www.businessinsider.com/thermonator-flame-throwing-robot-dog-selling-online-legal-us-states-2024-4

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/23/thermonator-flamethrowing-robot-dog-shoot-fire/

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-desert-sun/20240429/281625310372689

I understand that some of these don't have coverage which is in depth enough to prove notability, but I think that some do (correct me if I'm wrong) and some of those in the article definitely do. So wouldn't the less in-depth coverage also support the more in-depth coverage?

I guess what I am looking for is a bit more explanation on how the notability works, because based on my reading of WP:N it seems like it would qualify, particularly with the new sources. However, the last reviewer rejected it, and when I asked him for clarification on his talk page, he suggested I ask here instead.

Thanks!

P.S.: I've edited the draft a bit and added some of these sources. If anyone has time to look at the draft and offer any feedback it would be much appreciated!

Chagropango (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chagropango Using non-in depth sources to support in-depth sources is not how this works, that would be original research. You can't construct notability through your analysis of the sources- the claims to notability must be clearly stated by the sources.
Most of these sources seem to just document the availability of this company's main product. Some criticize it as reflective of private property rights in America run amok(especially the UK sources) but I'm not sure that's enough to sustain an article about this company. Maybe others will have a different view. 331dot (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chagropango: I tend to agree with 331dot. Also, just to point out that the Daily Star is a deprecated source, and mustn't be cited, while Metro is considered generally unreliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:11, 6 June 2024 review of submission by NerdyPriyam

Hello, Can you please specify what exactly needs to be modified? I'd appreciate it if you treat my article as a fresh piece. It can be an extension of the already published article on "plagiarism", but it should redirect to a fresh page on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any changes that can help me achieve my goal. Looking forward to hearing from you soon NerdyPriyam (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @NerdyPriyam, but as it's currently written, this isn't really a viable draft for an encyclopaedia article; it is a polemic essay, with some advisory elements, and possibly also original research (eg. the statement "Even if it was not intentional, it is still plagiarism and certainly not acceptable in any way." – who says so?).
I also agree with the reviewer that (salient and well-referenced parts of) this could be merged into the plagiarism article; I don't quite see why we need a separate article on this particularly flavour of plagiarism. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for your feedback. Please let me know how to proceed with the process of content merging and contribute further. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. NerdyPriyam (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NerdyPriyam: there's no process, as such, it's just a case of good, old-fashioned editing. Identify the bits of information that are relevant in the wider context of plagiarism, and that are well supported by reliable sources. Take out all instructions/advice, as well as your own commentary and original research. Compile whatever you thus have into a coherent paragraph or possibly several, and add it (along with the supporting sources) as a new section into the main plagiarism article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:38, 6 June 2024 review of submission by Pittufederationofindia

Hello, Pittufederationofindia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. not cleared why my page and draft is not approvable? 

Pittufederationofindia (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pittufederationofindia: your draft was declined for the reasons given in the decline notice, namely lack of reliable sources and evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked for username and promotion. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 6 June 2024 review of submission by James Mwakundia Tumbo

I cannot create articles Hello,

Please help I cannot create articles and my articles get rejected.

How can I contribute to this community and add more helpful content to the audience?

Regards,

James Tumbo 

James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James Mwakundia Tumbo I'm assuming you're referring to Draft:BetAfriq, which was deleted under G13 a year ago after being declined (not rejected). If you wish to continue working on it, you can request undeletion at WP:REFUND/G13 '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi thank you for the response. James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James Mwakundia Tumbo Are you affiliated with this company in some way, be it a direct employee or the company being your client? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not. I add content on Kenyan context. James Mwakundia Tumbo (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:16, 6 June 2024 review of submission by RexScrivener

Hello, good day. I have updated the article by removing promotional information and adding accurate details about the school, such as its history, operations, and some notable events that have occurred. Furthermore, I would like to inquire if all this information is now credible and authentic. Additionally, I recently edited a school on Wikipedia, and it appears to have a similar information about a school same like mine and this school has been in the article page, and mine has not. I am just asking why the school Dormma Senior High School [1] has been approved without any notability [2], but mine cannot?

Thank you I will no longer make any Question Tab further this is all I just ask Respectfully- RexScrivener (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RexScrivener this is the sixth time you've asked about the draft. It still does not meet notability guidelines; none of the sources are reliable and it is still promotional in tone. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please do not ask about this draft again. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi thank you for replaying, I have remove "promotional" tone info also I have added a "stub template". RexScrivener (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those edits do nothing to resolve the reasons why this draft was rejected.
You have moved it unilaterally into the main article space, and it has all too predictably been listed for AfD discussion. This is therefore no longer an AfC matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:00, 6 June 2024 review of submission by Aczaprn777

What would qualify. As sufficiently notable ? Aczaprn777 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aczaprn777 see WP:NBIO and H:YFA. Your draft is blatant self-promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 7

04:41, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia

The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Hal Stern's university page) that are not Hal Stern's employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Hal Stern is a very accomplished scholar---book author, professor, and a Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor at a large U.S. University. It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. universities and scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a more level-headed and potentially more knowledgeable user? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garden Lover Asia: please do not make assumptions about what knowledge another editor may or may not possess, or imply that they are not "level-headed"; that is just insulting. Also, one does not need to be an expert in a topic area to be able to assess whether a draft complies with our policies and guidelines.
And another thing: draft reviewers are there to review, not to edit. It isn't our job to improve the drafts up to such standard that they can be accepted, that is entirely the responsibility of the author(s) and other proponents of the draft. So no, it is not "extremely surprising" that this wasn't done here, quite the opposite. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to make assumption about User4edits. The page of this editor mentions that he "may be found hunting for promotional and paid articles of Indian businesspeople." and he declined my article on Hal Stern. Later, Mdann52 moved the page to article space, because Mdann52 thought that "clearly meets WP:NPROF from the appointment held alone". This reversal by Mdann52 pretty much proves that User4edits was not knowledgeble and is only trying to reject articles instead of being more open and making Wikipedia what it claims to be: an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add - I decided to approve the article after spending a fair amount of time to check the notability, add some sources and do some further research - however it would also have been perfectly reasonable for me not to do so given how it was when it was reviewed. The three sources I added while doing so help with the notability, and it appears to meet the relevant guidelines, however given how many primary sources were in the article when it was reviewed, I don't think the other users actions were unreasonable or unexpected. Mdann52 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia: you seem to be intent on continuing further down the path of aspersions and innuendo, and I am asking you to please stop, and review WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which relies on people working together, not against each other. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Garden Lover Asia

The submission was declined on the grounds that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, I cited several sources (in addition to Prof. Braun's university page) that are not his employers' and are reliable and independent in every sense of the terms. Also, Henry Braun is a very accomplished scholar---book author, educator, professor, several prestigious career award winners, fellows of prestigious organizations like AERA, inducted into prestigious organizations like National Academy of Science, former VP of a large non-profit,.... It is extremely surprising that the user User4edits declined the article rather than making a few corrections followed by accepting it. This user's user page mentions "I mostly edit Universities in India, Government of India related and some other pages." He probably has no idea about U.S. scholars. Is it possible to have this submission reviewed by a user who is potentially more knowledgeable about the U.S. universities and education system? Thanks, Garden Lover Asia Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @User4edits, who was mentioned by name.
@Garden Lover Asia Yes, the subject might be notable per WP:NPROF, but it would need a rewrite and more sources before being published. There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert, and it needs more independent reliable sources. Also, what is your relationship with Seeking absolute truth (talk · contribs)? They asked about the same draft a while ago. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia has a draft in their sandbox which is of the same subject on which @Seeking absolute truth was editing (draft deleted for promotion). I have left a sock notice on GardenLoverAsia's talk page. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a small field of research (educational measurement and statistics). So I meet the same people, read research work from the same people, attend presentations of the same people at conferences etc. as others in our field. So it should not be surprising if I am working on the same article as another person (probably in the same field). And yes---I discussed with a couple of researchers that I met at a conference in April (Conference program: https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/NCME/4b7590fc-3903-444d-b89d-c45b7fa3da3f/UploadedImages/2024_Annual_Meeting/NCME004-AnnualMeeting_Program_FINAL.pdf) about publishing Wikipedia articles on a few people who we thought were thought leaders there: Henry Braun, Robert Mislevy, Randy Bennett, Sandip Sinharay, Alina von Davier (she has a Wikipedia article, we found) etc. So it is possible that another researcher tried to publish an article on Henry Braun or Hal Stern or Sandip Sinharay (who I am working on right now). In addition, instead of focusing on which account is related to who (and trying to be the next Sherlock Holmes), I request you to be fair to the subjects of the articles submitted. Henry Braun is very similar in stature in his field to Eric Bradlow, Li Cai, Paul W. Holland, Alina von Davier etc. who are all in the same field (Prof. Braun was a colleague of three of them) and the references I submitted for Prof. Braun are very similar in nature and number to the references in these other articles. So it is strange that an article on Prof. Braun would be declined when these other articles exist. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About your statement "There are peacocky phrases such as world-renowned expert", what about the following in the article for Li Cai (who is in the same field as Henry Braun): "The algorithm was recognized as a mathematically rigorous breakthrough in the "curse of dimensionality" or the following in the Wikpedia article for Alina von Davier (same field): "Von Davier is a researcher, innovator, and an executive leader"? If "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "..innovator, and an executive leader" are acceptable, how is "world-renowned expert" be peacocky? Also, I am in the same field and both "mathematically rigorous breakthrough" and "innovator" are too much of an exaggeration. The only thing that is true is that both Li Cai and Alina von Davier are big self-promoters. Thus, it seems that you are applying double standards in reviewing articles and declined an article on a humble person while accepting those on self-promoters. I will end with the fact that Henry Braun received a career contributions award in 2023 in the same field as Li Cai and Alina von Davier--so an article on him is definitely eligible in what is claimed to be an encyclopedia. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I also see that you editors contradict each other. On the article on Henry Braun, I see that the editor StarryGrandma wrote in April on the article on Henry Braun that the references so far are just fine and yet user4edits etc. think references are not enough. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garden Lover Asia: - the issue here isn't the notability (which I don't think anyone has questioned), however the toning of the article and the fact a lot of the article is not supported by citations, or inproperly cited. I'm happy to do some work on rewording some sections if needed, but in the current form it's not really ready for mainspace. Mdann52 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will highly appreciate if you will help with this article on Henry Braun. As I wrote above, I mimicked the format (and sources) of this article from articles on other people in his field (Li Cai, Eric Bradlow, Paul W. Holland), but probably did not succeed entirely. Thanks---you seem to be so much more helpful than editors like user4edit. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have 5 sources to support that his name is Henry Braun that is just weird and completely unnecessary. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A common reason of decline is the lack of reliable sources and different editors have different opinions about what is reliable. So I thought I would add a few to increase the chance of acceptance. :-) I will revise it soon to reduce the number. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am preparing a submission on Sandip Sinharay that is in my sandbox. Will you please take a quick Look and let me know if you consider him to pass the criteria of a notable person stated in WP:NPROF? I think Sandip Sinharay does pass because of being an editor of a prestigious journal (and past editor of two other journals) in his field, publisher of books (with well-known publishers) and 100+ articles, and winners of important awards in his field. However, I was talking with a few friends (all of whom want to make our field of psychometrics more visible and are bloggers, authors of articles in journals and encyclopedias like Wikipedia etc.) at a recent conference and heard that articles submitted by them on a few other people and Sandip Sinharay were declined for different reasons (not a notable person, self-promotion etc.). Please feel free to do your own research, like you did for Hal Stern, about his notability (or otherwise). There is a news article about him in a leading Bengali newspaper, showing he is notable in another way (by overcoming a terrible accident to later become somewhat successful in life): https://www.anandabazar.com/west-bengal/sandip-singha-roy-shares-his-experience-of-harassments-when-he-was-a-student-at-kharagpur/cid/1453550, but I did not cite that as a source as the Wikipedia editors will immediately protest that. Garden Lover Asia (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:33, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Yatharthsrivastava

Inquiry for decline

Hi

I was told that my article Draft:Sukesha didn't have proper citations, though I had included four citations: three from published books and one from a respected website that has often been cited in wiki articles. I would love to get some feedback on where I can improve.

First source: Amar Chitra Katha, a respectable comic book series that does research accurately on all of its issues on mythology

Second source: Vettam Mani's Puranic Encyclopaedia, a comprehensive work that talks about all mythological figures in Hindu myth.

Third source: Wisdom Library, which is a respectable website that is used by wiki for multiple articles on Hindu mythology

Fourth source: A direct translation of Ramayana, which talks about my character. Yatharthsrivastava (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yatharthsrivastava: it's difficult to tell how much of what you've written is actually supported by the sources, as you haven't cited them inline (which, in fairness, is not absolutely mandatory, but very much the preferred method nevertheless); see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice.
Also, offline sources must be cited with full bibliographical details to enable them to be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for more on this.
BTW, it seems sources 2 and 3 are actually the same? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:59, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020

Why is there a block on this? It has been cleaned up and now includes the references which prove notability. 2A01:4B00:B249:AC00:95BA:7F06:CBE9:D020 (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how you've done that, but if you feel you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers, you should first appeal to the last reviewer to ask them to reconsider their rejection. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:58, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Kamila Fomin

Hello! How can I know of my article about Daniel Druhora is ready to be published? Kamila Fomin (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamila Fomin: if you're asking about Draft:Daniel Druhora (like you did the last time), then please link to that draft, not the one in your sandbox.
I declined this draft a couple of weeks ago. It has been edited since then, but not resubmitted. The way you find out if it's ready for publication is you resubmit it for another review (whenever you feel you have sufficiently addressed the reasons for the decline). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:34, 7 June 2024 review of submission by MarkCeline

hi, i recently edited an article, It got declined and the user who declined stated exact reasons too. The problem is, english is not my first language, therefore I am having trouble understanding the instructions. I can try retyping what the user said. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of events). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia." Please word it in simpler terms and help me. MarkCeline (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkCeline: the decline notice says that the subject is not notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you DoubleGrazing MarkCeline (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkCeline It was me who declined the draft. I asked you to go through H:YFA and WP:REFB. Kindly read other articles like Vyapam scam. I would ask you to continue the article. Other users would join for sure. And, we reviewers are not here just to decline. We use to improve the articles appear notable. Keep improving. If you need any help, please ask me. I would be happy to assist. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Twinkle1990. It means a lot. MarkCeline (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For any assistance and improvement of the draft, you are always welcome to my talk page. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Sjoseph2024

I am an elected State Executive Committee member of the Texas Republican Party, and I would like to create my Wikipedia page with all relevant information. Sjoseph2024 (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sjoseph2024 Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves, please read the autobiography policy. Your draft is wholly unsourced and reads like a resume. A Wikipedia article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about you, showing how you meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Frankly, it would be unusual for a state level party official who does not hold public office to draw the coverage needed to merit an article, but it's not impossible. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any article about you would not be "your Wikipedia page", it would be an article about you, no different than if the New York Times wrote about you. You wouldn't have an exclusive right to edit the article, and cannot keep it on the text that you might prefer it have. Any information about you, good or bad, can be in an article about you as long as it appears in an independent reliable source and is not defamatory. See WP:PROUD for more information, as well as WP:OWN. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Afternoon, Sjoseph2024. Firstly, can I please make you aware of WP:AUTOBIO, which is our guidelines for such pages. Generally speaking, you should not publish articles on yourself.
Secondly, you would need to meet the criteria at WP:NPOL to show you are notable enough for an article. Candidates for office are generally not notable, so you would need to show you met WP:GNG. From a quick search, I cannot find adaquate sourcing to meet that bar.
Thirdly, the draft is completely unsourced, which is unacceptable under our rules for articles on living people. For good reason, we don't allow people to make claims on here they are the subject and X is true, as editors and our readers have no way of verifying that that person is who they say they are. Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mean 52 I think this user isn't seeking public office(which doesn't meet NPOL anyway), they are a member of the party's executive committee, essentially on the board. They would probably need to meet WP:BIO and for that there would need to be coverage discussing their influence on the party/its candidates/its ideology/etc. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:51, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Singhizking

Hello. My draft has been declined. How do i edit it so that it gets accepted and published as an article. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Singhizking: We don't cite wikis in general (no editorial oversight). The topic of your draft falls into a contentious topic (South Asian social strata and castes). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if i add this contentious topic to my draft will it be accepted Singhizking (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Singhizking: You misread what I wrote; I'll clarify. The draft is in a topic area that is considered problematic - specifically, South Asian castes and similar social strata - and so there will be increased scrutiny on your draft as a result. This does not affect the chance of your draft being accepted, but it does mean you need to be careful about how you go about writing this. As to your draft being accepted, you currently have no usable sources at all; as I said, we do not cite wikis. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Please can you give me a usable source. Thank you Singhizking (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your job. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject scholarly sources that discuss the surname at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:05, 7 June 2024 review of submission by StephenFlint

Because, I just wanna make sure it will submitted or not. That's all! StephenFlint (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StephenFlint: Your only source is a video from the subject's own YouTube channel. Not only is this completely unacceptable, one source by itself - no matter how good it is - cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already just wanna know how good or bad it is. Just remind me! StephenFlint (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's bad and has been deleted. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:08, 7 June 2024 review of submission by Abhidiit

I created a page about myself. It was declined. I have little to no experience of creating wikipedia pages. My page was declined and I can see editor's comments. But I dont know how to fix those issues. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Abhidiit (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves or post their resume. Please see the autobiography policy. It is not recommended that you write about yourself at all, though it is not absolutely forbidden. Any article about you must not merely document your accomplishments, it must summarize what independent reliable sources choose to say about you and how you are a notable academic. Please see Your First Article. You need to set aside everything you know about yourself and only write based on what others say about you. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:31, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 39.34.132.104

I want to publish the article of Ayaz Sheikh. He is my cousin brother and he is a Pakistani playback singer. Can you help me in publishing or creating his article? I have not made any financial deal with Ayaz Sheikh for this work and Ayaz Sheikh's page is already created administrator on Urdu Wikipedia. Please help and support create English Wikipedia Short Page Ayaz Sheikh. If you have an authority. 39.34.132.104 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 8

17:54, 7 June 2024 review of submission by 120.56.167.234

The article User: Fishsicles/sandbox has been made redundant by the publishing of Sodium tetrapropylborate, so i want to cleanup the article as per WP:CLEANUP and make it an redirect to that article. Thanks, 120.56.167.234.

120.56.167.99 (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't even make any sense. In any case, you've managed to get yourself blocked (for evading an earlier block, it seems), so take a break and find something to do in the real world instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP user seems to have deleted content from today's section, and it cannot be easily restored due to subsequent edits. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:16, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Reality180

The sources of all information in this document are clearly identified. There are many worse articles on wikipedia, but few are more factual than this. This document should be adopted because it was written based on facts confirmed by solid data. Reality180 (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reality180: this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. Repeated resubmission without any attempt to improve the draft is disruptive and will eventually result in rejection. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reality180 The presence or content of an article is not compared to that of other articles that themselves may be inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer, see other stuff exists. If there are "worse articles", please help us take action on them by identifying them so we are aware of them. 331dot (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:24, 8 June 2024 review of submission by Minejob

Why this page got reject please explain me and tell me the reasons so I can make them good in future. Minejob (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Minejob: because there is nothing to suggest you are notable. We don't host personal 'profiles' etc., for that you need to go to the likes of LinkedIn. We are an encyclopaedia, and publish articles on subjects with encyclopaedic merit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1227883951"