Main page

Talk page

Submissions Category — List (sorting)

Showcase

Participants Apply — By subject

Reviewing instructions

Help desk

Backlog drives

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions

• Trueinternet (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:WP Engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article has been declined twice, first admin said it had advertising and that it didn't have in-depth and reliable sources, so I revised language to reduce advertising and also added more citations. 2nd admin says sources are not reliable or independent. I would like to know specific reasons of the decline and how to fix this. The company has a lot more news coverage than what I have used. Also Which sources are considered unreliable and not independent? cannot possibly be all of them? Please provide a list of all the unreliable sources. Trueinternet (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trueinternet: the reviewers (neither of whom is an admin) have chosen slightly different decline templates, but in both cases the decline reason is lack of evident notability (with a side of promotionality), because the sources are just routine business reporting which does not establish notability per WP:NCORP / WP:GNG. There is also nothing in this draft that would explain why it should be included in a global encyclopaedia – what impact has it had on the industry; how has it 'moved the needle'; how is it doing things fundamentally differently from its peers? To me this just describes a very ordinary ROTM hosting provider. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not know this but WP Engine is the most well known Wordpress hosting company. One of the news articles from 2018 said they had 75,000 customer at that time. It must be much more by now. As one of the biggest hosting companies, that is why they should be on Wikipedia. I am a web designer and personally always recommending them to my Web design clients who want to have a faster hosting and speed up their website. Tell me how I can modify the draft to make it work. I know I am not supposed to say things that sound promotional or not cited, so it could be challenging, but the fact that they have so much news coverage, would proof that they are a notable and well known company. Trueinternet (talk) 07:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check these articles below.

WP Engine Ranked Top 10 hosting company with 1.8% of all websites hosted by them.

https://www.hostingadvice .com/how-to/largest-web-hosting-companies/

Ranked #6 hosting company here

https://diggitymarketing.com/web-hosting/biggest-companies/

Ranked #17 here based on their Alexa ranking (Traffic) compared to other hosting companies

https://www.whtop.com/top.100-alexa-ranking

This link here shows they have 132,000 customers and ranked them as the #2 Wordpress Hosting company.

https://6sense.com/tech/wordpress-hosting/wp-engine-market-share

PC Mag has picked it as Top 10 best hosting company

https://www.pcmag.com/lists/best-web-hosting-services

Let me know if these additional articles help. If not, I can provide you dozens of other Top 10 articles that have included them as one of the Top hosting companies and have write ups on them.Trueinternet (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bushido77 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robert Heisner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am confused as to why this article was rejected. Robert Heisner started a new martial arts system. Park Jong Soo (who has an article on Wikipedia) advertised Heisner as one of his lead instructors (cited in this article.)

Hironori Otsuka (who has an article on Wikipedia) signed his Second Degree Black Belt certificate in 1970 (cited in this article.)

Heisner has numerous newspaper reports about him and is acknowledged by other martial artists as one of the primary instructors in the Western New York area.

His Christian ministry impact was also evidenced in many newspaper reports.

Please help me understand what I am missing. Thank you. Bushido77 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77: you haven't shown that the subject is notable. Inventing a new martial art is not a notability criterion, although it may indirectly result in media coverage etc. that may make someone notable. But apparently the reviewer felt that this wasn't yet demonstrated by the sources cited.

The draft also needs to be rewritten in a more neutral and factual tone appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Content such as "His dedication to Jesus and marital integrity helped steer him into the training that would be valuable throughout his life." (and this is but one example of many) may be suitable for his obit or maybe some religious publication, but has no place here. All the peacockery and hagiography needs to go before this can be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I will try again. I thought the commitment to Jesus was relevant as that is the reason he spent so many hours per week studying the martial arts while in Japan. Most other soldiers were drinking and chasing women... he trained in the martial arts instead. Bushido77 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an independent commentator talked about what you have just said, then you might be able to refer to it in the article. But Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the clarification. I will continue to work on this to meet the Wikipedia standards. Bushido77 (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On another (related) note, do you have any estimate on how many newspaper articles would be considered "enough?" At this point, there are roughly 30 newspaper reports about Heisner. Is that enough to establish "notability"? Are newspapers considered "reliable?" Thanks. Bushido77 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most newspapers are probably reliable, but it depends on the paper. It's not the quantity of sources that matters as much as the quality. Fewer high quality sources are better than a large number of low quality sources. To pass this process, most reviewers look for at least three good sources. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You declared a conflict of interest, what is the general nature of it? 331dot (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was a 40+ year student and good friend of Mr. Heisner. I also co-authored the book that documents the history of the Bushido Kai system. I have also been involved in ministry since meeting Robert Heisner. I have already been informed that it is difficult to overcome the formal (encyclopedic) nature of Wikipedia being close to the subject, but there are few who know the history as well as I do. I can work to make it more like an encyclopedia entry. Bushido77 (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PradhyumBajpai (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hierarchical Organisational Nexus Structure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I Don't Know How the algorithm works please help me to create the Business model's page made by me... And let me improve the mistakes I have done PradhyumBajpai (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need references. Your article has no reference. Every single sentence should have a citation from a reliable source. Trueinternet (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PradhyumBajpai: this draft has been rejected and won't be considered further. You appear to have written about some own idea or invention of yours. Please note that Wikipedia does not publish original research, we only summarise what other sources have previously published. If you get your idea reviewed and discussed in academic journals or the mainstream media, it may then be possible to write an article on it based on their coverage, but not before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tool took (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ahsan Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Set a Wikipedia article Tool took (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pleases Check my draft Article Tool took (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tool took: please don't start multiple threads.

I have rejected your draft as it's purely (self-)promotional with zero evidence of notability.

Note also that blocked users are not allowed to edit under any account or IP address. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ansaar20 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yibaman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why you rejecting this educational website Ansaar20 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft does little more than say it exists. Wikipedia articles must do more, as this is not a mere database of things that exist. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about this website, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable website. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Istarek (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David Lackland Sam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am trying to create a page for Prof. David L. Sam, but my submission was declined due to insufficient reliable sources. Though, I am not sure if this comment means I need to add more sources, or that I need to change my current sources. I would appreciate your comments. Istarek (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Istarek Generally your first port of call shoudl be SafariScribe who declined it. I am sure they will be happy to give you their full rationale. I notice, though, that they have

tagged it for Primary Source. WP:PRIMARY will tell you how you may best use the, and that one shoudl be sparing with one's use.

Generally we wish for better sources, not more sources. Sometimes fewer and better sources is the answer 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahsan Ali Web Designeer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Ahsan Ali Web Designeer/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Help me Ahsan Ali Web Designeer (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahsan Ali Web Designeer It is flagged for deletion. Wikipedia is not a web host, nor is it the place to advertise your services. Please do not attempt to advertise here again. This is not social media, and it is hard to see how it can be mistaken for it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sandbox is a place for you to try out content before either submitting to a draft or to mainspace. Clearly you are using your Sandbox to create an article about yourself, which is not only very much not playing cricket in Wikipedia's opinion, but it is also very clear to everyone that you are not notable enough for an article. Have you read Wikipedia's terms of service? Even the sandbox is still wikipedia's space, and you are not using it according to the terms of service. That is why you are getting this negative feedback. Spiralwidget (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Spiralwidget (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:2024 All-Australian team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently became a reviewer, and I have been rejecting a few articles that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline or standards. I have found this draft and I think it is worthy of being accepted- I was wondering how to accept the draft? On the instructions page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions it is clear that you press the "accept" button. No such button exists on my interface! I am very confused. Is there not a way to accept an article in the editor source code?Spiralwidget (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Did a bit of research- I hadn't saved my preferences correctly to use AFCH. sorted it out now! Spiralwidget (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Visaassessment (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Visaassessment/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please advise on this . Visaassessment (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Srandle18 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:WagerWire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! Just wanting more clarification on the process for submission here and why this was rejected? Srandle18 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srandle18: The draft was rejected and will not be considered further due primarily to the reviewers' inability to find any sort of source that could help for notability and secondarily because it appears to be undisclosed mercenary work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• LukeLangille (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Blackburn Brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I'm looking for assistance on the Wikipedia draft article I have created, "Blackburn Brothers." I was told that the sources were not reliable. I am just looking for feedback on which ones I need to adjust and which ones are valid. There are many here and I am feeling a bit overwhelmed, not sure which ones need to be changed.

I'm also concerned that the band I am writing about has been around for many years and some of the articles I site are very old. Perhaps Wikipedia is not recognizing them as valid because the sites are outdated. I am not sure if this can be remedied at all.

Thanks, LukeLangille (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeLangille: You misread what the reviewer said. The reviewer stated that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources (emphasis mine). We have stricter sourcing requirements for articles about living people, and they can be summarised thus: Any claim that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be sourced to a high-quality, third-party source that explicitly corroborates it or, failing that, removed.

I should also note we are not bound solely to online sources; we accept offline sources (books, magazines, newspapers) provided one provides enough information to look the source up in an offline archive, and we have bespoke templates specifically for the purpose. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 152.65.210.50 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pierre Chandon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

May I ask your kind assistance to help me publish this biographical page please? Thank you.

Best regards,

Marine 152.65.210.50 (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when posting. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Doubletrouble10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Greg MacLennan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is significant coverage in reliable sources of the subject cited on this page. Doubletrouble10 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doubletrouble10: Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• We can't use IMDb (no editorial oversight).
• https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/screens/2013-10-13/the-alamos-action-man/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Prose interview, pretty much every paragraph segues into a direct quote from the subject.
• https://cinapse.co/2014/08/cruise-control-a-trust-fall-into-the-arms-of-tom-cruise-alamo-drafthouses-greg-maclennan/ is useless for notability (too sparse). No real discussion of MacLennan.
• https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/screens/2017-05-03/get-ready-for-russellmania-ii/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Another apparent prose interview; pretty much every paragraph segues into a direct quote from him.
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/michael-bay-alamo-drafthouse-honoring-442257/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of MacLennan.
• https://www.austinchronicle.com/daily/screens/2013-08-24/rocky-rambo-and-rhinestones-with-sly-stallone/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Another prose interview.
• https://www.indiewire.com/features/general/nicolas-cage-surprises-alamo-drafthouse-c4ged-marathon-1201775595/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, direct quote, no actual discussion of MacLennan.
• https://ew.com/movies/2017/01/30/nicolas-cage-alamo-drafthouse-caged/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, direct quote, no actual discussion of MacLennan.
• https://screenrant.com/nicolas-cage-movie-marathon-alamo-drafthouse/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no actual discussion of MacLennan.
• https://filmschoolrejects.com/how-to-cut-a-trailer-for-a-movie-where-no-one-speaks-38e340aac55a/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview.
• https://www.comingsoon.net/horror/news/746643-unbearable-sameness-horror-movie-trailers is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Prose interview; most every paragraph segues into a direct quote from him.
• I can't assess https://www.adweek.com/creativity/the-10-most-memorable-movie-ad-campaigns-of-2017/ (walled).
• https://filmschoolrejects.com/best-trailers-2017/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://tribeza.com/arts/ones-to-watch-greg-maclennan-electric-owl-creative/ seems okay. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: using a source more than once.
• https://www.austinchronicle.com/screens/2021-07-02/what-the-drafthouse-has-been-up-to-from-a-to-z/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
• https://www.austinchronicle.com/screens/2020-01-17/four-austin-films-to-watch-in-2020/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
• http://www.lightscameraaustin.net/greg-maclennan-october-2020.html is borderline mainly due to its size. The interview mentioned is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• https://www.firstshowing.net/2021/watch-meet-the-lonely-child-in-terrifying-seek-horror-short-film/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://deadline.com/2024/06/frank-grillo-werewolves-movie-us-release-date-theaters-1235970015/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://www.editorsguild.com/MemberDetail?ID=48943 is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Content-free profile on the website of a guild he's a member of.

You've got one unambiguously good source. Most of the rest I could assess either barely discuss him or interview him. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:40E5:1007:4F9E:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Swobhagya swain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My profile is not show 2409:40E5:1007:4F9E:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We are not social media and we do not do profiles. We are an encyclopaedia and we write articles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tapazi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Ako (ruler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I got my page accepted, which I am proud of, but there are 8 other pages in different Wikipedias about Ako, for example in the Latvian Wiki, Russian Wiki, Italian Wiki, Japanese Wiki and etc. I am wondering how I could link my English Wiki to those other ones. Tapazi (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapazi, that's done in the languages menu. Bring that up, then click "add links". -- asilvering (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the language menu? Tapazi (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be at the top of the page. It's the icon with the A and a chinese character. -- asilvering (talk) 07:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it says "No languages yet. Add a new one?" but there pages about it in other language Wiki's. And when I select the language, the only options is "Open language settings" which doesn't do anything. Tapazi (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapazi: it's done via the 'Tools' menu > 'Add interlanguage links'. (At least that's how I do it.) Don't ask me why it's there and not in the 'Add languages' menu, baffles me. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just figured it out, thank you for helping me! Tapazi (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, my bad. That's what I get for assuming the new Vector skin simply moved things around instead of completely changing how they work. (On the old Vector, it's very obvious...) -- asilvering (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jpschahal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Facetoo Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

https://g.co/kgs/Z5KUaZi why its getting rejected Jpschahal (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As KylieTastic explained, it was rejected because you didn't demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. You keep posting that link, but that just shows a google search with the artist's spotify, youtube etc. as results; having a Spotify and a YouTube isn't how we measure notability. If you read the specific notability guideline for musicians, you'll notice that the kind of artist who qualifies for a Wikipedia page "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." In other words, people need to be writing articles for notable websites, magazines, newspapers, etc about this person. You haven't shown that to be the case. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 103.85.11.73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Friends Forever (Parth Siddhpura novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

i need to publish my article 103.85.11.73 (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sophia.trifoli (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mark O'Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would love help with adding more references to my wikipedia page to ensure that it will be passed. Sophia.trifoli (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this isn't the place to ask for co-editors; we're just here to advise you on what is needed. It's best if you have references in hand before attempting to write an article. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sophia.trifoli The only thing that will allow acceptance is that the subject passes the relevant notability criteria. As a musician he needs to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. This means that you need to spend more time researching and less time writing. The draft is virtually unreadable with great walls of text. You need to edit it right down, précis it, to summarise in your own words what is said about O'Leary in significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Morgan-weta (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Palirhoeus eatoni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I realise now that as a monspecific genus I should have called the page "Palirhoeus" not as here "Palirhoeus_eatoni". So, I've started the new page and want to delete this one. How do I delete draft page in review? Morgan-weta (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Resolved. C F A 💬 03:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hairmer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jewelmer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need some assistance with this page. Please tell me what to revise to make it less promotional sounding. Also reviewer has said that every single source is unreliable. I find this hard to comprehend. Could you please provide explanation on why all sources are unreliable? The source analysis is in the Talk page. It also has coverage in Robb Report (First paragraph not quotations). There was also an independent TV documentary about them which can be found on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtr5byc3f-A&t=106s Hairmer (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hairmer For the most part, it's not the sources themselves that are the problem, but their content. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source, as anyone can post anything to YouTube without fact checking and editorial control. Only videos posted by recognized media outlets are acceptable, and only if posted to their verified channel.

To look at the first few of your sources, number 1 is an interview with company personnel, so it is not an independent source. Number 2 is a very brief mention, and not significant coverage. Number 3 is another interview that just summarizes the routine actions of the company(how it grows pearls, its business). Most of the sources seem to be like this. As odd as it may seem, you have too many sources. Fewer high quality sources are preferable to a large number of low quality sources. What are the three (and only three, please) best sources that you have? These should not be interviews, press releases, announcements of routine business activities, brief mentions, or other primary sources. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also mention that many editors- most of us whom are here for free- are reluctant to provide a great deal of help to paid editors like yourself. If you're getting paid to do this, you should be doing the work to learn our policies. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains many proper citations as you can check my source analysis on the talk page. I am not trying to have anyone do my work and I am very familiar with the policies. This is why I am questioning why it was declined. The declining reviewers are always vague and never provide specific instructions on what they feel are the sections that need to be worked on to reduce promo language. This is another reason why I ask here. It feels like paid editors are often discriminated against.

Since you asked for the 3 best sources, I will provide them here:

https://news.jewellerynet.com/uploads/ebook/Supplement/Pearl-Report_2022-2023/9/

https://anneofcarversville.com/jewelry-news/2023/7/3/golden-pearls-vogue-philippines-july 2 sentences are quotations by company staff. Not enough to make it primary.

https://www.tatlerasia.com/power-purpose/philanthropy/jewelmer-wins-sustainability-initiative-of-the-year-award

BTW, this article https://www.tatlerasia.com/style/jewellery/an-inside-look-at-the-farms-where-beautiful-pearls-of-unimaginable-lustre-are-born has around 4 quotations, but the majority of the article is journalist commentary, so you can ignore the quotations and still the article has enough content to be considered towards notability. The same is the case with several articles. None of the articles are purely Q/A. I have avoided using such articles. Hairmer (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2603:8000:D500:C58C:FCD5:F7D5:61CF:682 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David Schuler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I've submitted a number of reliable citations independent of the subject including Billboard, Collider, American Songwriter and more yet the submission draft continues to be declined. I'm not entirely sure why this would be but any clarity would be greatly appreciated as I've followed the guidlelines for citing and submitting. Thank you! 2603:8000:D500:C58C:FCD5:F7D5:61CF:682 (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb and Discogs are not reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gracewith (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gyan C. Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mr. Jain is a Padmashree awardee and in my draft, I have shared reliable sources to prove the same, including media coverage, letters from central and state governments, and a picture of him receiving the award from the president. Despite all these, the draft is getting rejected again and again. Also, I have shared additional information including the 3rd party links to prove the same.

It feels like the draft is getting rejected intentionally wi9thout going through the informations, source links in details. Gracewith (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial links to purchase books need to be removed they are NOT useful sources and we don't use photographs of original documents like you have done, do you have a conflict of interest with this topic by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also say in the draft that " Details about Gyan Chand Jain's early life are currently unavailable from reliable sources. This information will be added when a reliable source becomes available." This is NOT acceptable for a WP:BLP. Theroadislong (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace with The draft has been declined, not rejected. The word rejected has a specific meaning in this process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted provided you address the concerns that led to the decline. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Realmomo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Beijing Normal University at Zhuhai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page is the English translation of the Chinese Wikipedia article "北京师范大学珠海校区". Realmomo (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realmomo Yes; you have submitted it for a review. Note that the Chinese Wikipedia has different editors and policies than the English Wikipedia- it's up to you as the translator to make sure that the draft meets the policies of the Wikipedia you are translating for, such as WP:ORG. I don't think your draft does, as it reads like a promotional brochure written by the college, and not a summary of what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about it. It's possible this is acceptable on the Chinese Wikipedia, but not here. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my translations are from the English interface of the school's official website as well as some authoritative reports, and the sources are definitely reliable. Realmomo (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that's problematic as Wikipedia (at least, this one) isn't interested in what the college says about itself, lifting content directly from its website is likely a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Realmomo: I don't see how this draft can be a translation of the corresponding article in the Chinese Wikipedia, and at the same time be a translation of the organisation's own website etc. (unless the Chinese article is a potential copyright violation). But putting that aside, the sources may well be "reliable" and "authorative", but they may still not establish notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As its website states "all rights reserved", it is indeed a copyright violation. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Garygfletcher (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gary Grant Fletcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following references highlight that this individual has been accepted by the National Governing Body as part of the committee of technical experts in their field, this is on the Governing Body Website - how do you reference this accolade with any more substance than that? It is literally the highest level of recognition anyone can get in the United Kingdom as being an expert in paddlesports. He was also the National Staff Officer for Paddlesports in the Sea Cadets, which is the largest Canoe and Kayak Club in the country with 291 paddlesport staff under his direction and 400 sea cadet units running these activities.

https://britishcanoeingawarding.org.uk/new-technical-group-members-announced/

https://britishcanoeingawarding.org.uk/organisational-structure/

https://britishcanoeingawarding.org.uk/wp-content/files/BCAB_Tech_Groups_22022024.png Garygfletcher (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you writing about yourself? 331dot (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garygfletcher: primary sources do not establish notability according to our general notability guideline WP:GNG, and there is no special guideline that would apply to "an expert in paddlesports", or for that matter an RN volunteer or a technical consultant. (There is one, WP:NACADEMIC, that might apply to a marine biologist, but I don't see anything in the draft that would suggest this standard is met, either.) You therefore need to find multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent, and that have provided significant coverage of this person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

== Appeal Decision: Wikipedia Notability Assessment ==

Thank you for your review of the notability of the subject in question. We appreciate the detailed feedback and would like to address the concerns raised in light of the relevant criteria outlined in the Wikipedia guidelines for academic notability.

=== Fellowship Status ===

According to item 3 of the Wikipedia:NACADEMIC guidelines, a Fellow of a prestigious scholarly society or association is considered notable. The subject has been recognised as a Fellow at Imperial College London, a top-tier institution, which is well-documented with multiple references, including the department’s website. This aligns with the specified criteria and supports the claim of notability.

=== Committee Position ===

The subject also holds a position on the British Canoeing Awarding Body committee. This role involves determining academic criteria for qualifications within the paddlesports field. This aligns with criteria 6 and 7 of the Wikipedia:NACADEMIC guidelines:

• Criteria 6: The subject holds a significant administrative position within a major academic society.
• Criteria 7: The subject has made a considerable impact outside of academia through their role.

=== Publication Leadership ===

The roles and contributions in other areas demonstrate substantial impact and recognition in their field.

In light of the above, we respectfully request what amendments can be made to the article to accurately reflect these contributions and align with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Specifically, the following updates would be beneficial:

• Detailed mention of the Fellow status at Imperial College London.
• Clarification of the role and impact of the British Canoeing Awarding Body committee position.
• Acknowledgement of the substantial impact the subject has made outside of academia.

These amendments will provide a clearer and more comprehensive representation of the subject’s notability in line with Wikipedia’s criteria. We look forward to your feedback and any further suggestions for improvement. Garygfletcher (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garygfletcher: sorry, but 'Imperial College Advanced Hackspace' is not a scholarly society, and neither is a canoeing awarding body a major academic society. In short, there is absolutely no merit to your argument. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College Advanced Hackspace is a department of Imperial College London a top 10 university? Garygfletcher (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, are you writing about yourself? You speak in the third person. 331dot (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

an employee/volunteer who knows this individual, what is this context and what needs to be amended? Garygfletcher (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not Gary Fletcher, you must change your username immediately. Please do so via Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and as the next step after that, make a formal disclosure of your conflict of interest (COI). I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garygfletcher: again, that 'hackspace' is not a scholarly society, not even close. Scholarly societies are the likes of the Royal Society, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial College London is not a scholarly society? Garygfletcher (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a college, not a society. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial is a university. Please read that article I've linked above on scholarly societies, if you're not familiar with the concept.

The WP:NACADEMIC guideline is designed to identify academics at the very top of their field. Not every university lecturer is eligible, not even every professor. You would need to be a particularly distinguished professor. If you hold a named chair at Imperial, you might qualify; otherwise not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Masierra2008 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Medusa Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need to publish my first article. I need to do so because I don't have time to make everything perfect easily. Masierra2008 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masierra2008: we don't require perfection. We do require evidence of notability, however, as well as for the information to be supported by reliable sources. This draft is completely unreferenced, and therefore fails on both counts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masierra2008 An account with a username very similar to yours uploaded the logo of this film studio as its own personal work, indicating that they created it and own the copyright to it. Was that you? 331dot (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may guess. Yes... it was. But you know what? It's not a big deal. @331dot, I was just you know... making a film company article to publish. Masierra2008 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very big deal. Did you personally create the logo and do you personally own the copyright to it? 331dot (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I do own the copyright to it. But I also recently gave credit to the original authors and MediaForEurope for the logo. Being honest. That's all I can say. Masierra2008 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that means you work for or own this company, that must be declared, please see your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See their user page where they say "Hi. This is my Wikipedia page. I forgot that I was blocked, but now I'm free". Theroadislong (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that, but AFAIK even this other account is not blocked. Maybe they thought they needed a separate account there? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that is just ME! Masierra2008 (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because I wanted to be free on Wikipedia. I just never wrote articles, I just wanted to stop messing other peoples' articles. Tee-hee! 😉 Masierra2008 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:19C:4D80:4EA0:C019:985:DD7A:33E9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dustin Grinnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I am confused by the recent rejection of my submission saying that entire sections were not cited. As I look at it now, the only section flagged is Aphantasia and Writing. Can you please provide insight on what exactly is missing? Thank you. 2601:19C:4D80:4EA0:C019:985:DD7A:33E9 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that 'sections' is not meant literally, but rather means 'passages' etc. There are several paragraphs without any referencing, and many more end without a citation (meaning that the content after the last citation is unsupported). In articles on living people (WP:BLP) pretty much every material statement and all personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Education and professional career" section is entirely unsourced, where did all this info come from? Please cite your sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Rosemond (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Marco Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I haven't finished the article. Chris Rosemond (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Rosemond: why did you submit it? Submitting is you saying that you've finished editing and want the draft to be reviewed and published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rosemond Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to tell the world about your YouTube Channel. The draft was rejected and will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not interested in what a topic wants to say about itself, only in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability, like notable web content.

You will need to declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID. Also see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dredwinhm (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:EGLA CORP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help with this article it keeps being rejected Dredwinhm (talk) 15:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, please disclose your connection with the company(as you claim to have personally created and personally own the copyright to its logo, and have made the logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution). I've provided more information on your user talk page. Then, please tell what help it is you are seeking. 331dot (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the owner of EGLA CORP and I made the logo myself, hence I own the copyright, anyone can use the image on their website. What's the user talk page? Dredwinhm (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dredwinhm: Then you must DISCLOSE on your userpage as soon as possible to come into compliance with our Terms of Use. Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques"):

• We can't use https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.egla_corp.952f1d328a28a2e2d1153a5867963753.html (connexion to subject, too sparse). Almost-content-free profile acknowledged to be written by the company.
• We can't use https://www.adscientificindex.com/university/EGLA+Corp./ (too sparse). I should note that WP:NACADEMIC only applies to individual people and not to firms.
• We can't use https://www.thefloridatribune.com/article/338941472-egla-communications-announces-the-release-of-the-cloud-to-cable-tv-video-and-music-platform (connexion to subject). Plainly-labeled press release. Even if it weren't one, it'd still be useless for notability (routine coverage).
• https://miamiherald.typepad.com/the-starting-gate/2014/05/emerge-tech-week-and-the-50000-winner-is.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
• https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/biz-monday/article43567041.html " " " " (" "). "-".
• https://voyagemia.com/interview/meet-edwin-hernandez-egla-communications-boca-raton-fl/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
• We generally do not cite academic repositories, including Researchgate (no editorial oversight). That is is a profile of an academic is irrelevant.
• We can't use https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=QsPG_EoAAAAJ&hl=en (wrong subject). This helps for Hernandez' notability, and does jack for EGLA's. Coverage of the principal is not coverage of the firm, and as I said above our notability criteria for academics do not extend to companies engaged in similar research.
• https://imslegal.com/podcasts/monitoring-antitrust-matters-in-the-world-of-data-sharing-episode-3 is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't it'd be useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal about matters unrelated to EGLA.
• https://imslegal.com/news/ims-insights-live-panel-event-data-breaches-and-their-impact-on-litigation is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't it'd be useless for notability (wrong subject). Discussion of company principal, not EGLA.
• https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/discussions-at-the/at-the-round-table-with-08rdjQnzXIJ/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Podcast episode with company principal.
• https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2012/08/27/workers-turned-entrepreneurs-creating-jobs/ is useless for notability (too sparse). BArely any discussion of EGLA.
• We can't use https://techhubsouthflorida.org/directory/boca-raton-2/egla-corp/ (connexion to subject). Profile on the website of an organisation the firm is part of.
• We can't use the FCC by dint of it being a government source and thus primary.
• We can't use Apple Music/iTunes (online storefront). The podcast's episodes are all useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• We can't use Amazon (online storefront).
• We can't use https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=8811539 (too sparse). Content-free list. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=9497846 is virtually identical save for the decor on the pages.
• https://www.fau.edu/engineering/eecs/research/industry-advisory/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). Hernandez is on the board of this FAU council and even then he's only name-dropped along with EGLA.
• We can't use court documents by dint of them being government sources and thus primary.
• We can't use anything Globe Newswire publishes as they only ever publish press releases.
• https://seekingalpha.com/article/4685473-kopin-corporation-adverse-jury-verdict-likely-to-cause-concern-warning-sell is a non-sequitur.
• I earnestly cannot tell if I can even fairly assess https://www.coherentmarketinsights.com/market-insight/cloud-tv-market-4721 and therefore decline to do so (incompetent).
• https://techhubsouthflorida.org/tech-hub-announces-the-2024-golden-palm-award-nominees/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name in a list. Being a nominee for an award grants no notability in and of itself regardless of that award's prestige.

Nothing you cite that I can assess is remotely usable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Masierra2008 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Medusa Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to see what's going on, I mean, I don't understand what's going on, but I fixed everything. I put some references in my article. No one is approving it and I don't know why! 😐😒 Masierra2008 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your user talk page for important information. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mollystarkdean (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Ebony Reed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I prove that this prominent author and journalist deserves a Wiki per "the submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article"? Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ebony_Reed Mollystarkdean (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mollystarkdean: you have to produce sources that meet either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:AUTHOR notability guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mollystarkdean. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. Hardly any of your sources meet those criteria (see WP:42 for more information). ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MattHaigh153 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Trivlic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article has 6 references, two of them talking directly about the subject that I just added. I am just wondering why they aren't qualified MattHaigh153 (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MattHaigh153: of the six sources, three are primary, two provide only passing mentions, and one is an interview. None of these count towards notability per WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MattHaigh. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Erlendenden (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mikkel Hagli Mossefinn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why did my article get rejected Erlendenden (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be in Norwegian, and this is the English Wikipedia. You should go to the Norwegian Wikipedia(there appears to be two, either this one or this one). It also appears to be completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: nn is Nynorsk, a variant written form of Norwegian. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erlendenden: Not only do we not accept Norwegian text (as this is the English-language Wikipedia), your draft is entirely unsourced. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shom.analytics (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sahajidah Hai-O Marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is my article being rejected multiple times and after I've edited it for neutrality and shortened it by removing 90% of the content, it now slaps me with the "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

Why is that so? Shom.analytics (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shom.analytics: this draft has been rejected, because after multiple earlier declines, it still shows absolutely no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's a description of a company that has been around for 30 years, what kind of evidence do I have to show? I had lots of them but was declined due to press conferences being not allowed. Can you give me some examples of what kind of evidence can I provide? Shom.analytics (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shom.analytics: the notability guideline for businesses is given at WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to just document the existence of a business. You must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the business. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the company and goes into detail about what the sources sees as notable about the business. If your payment is dependent on you successfully creating an article, I suggest that you return their money. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Masierra2008 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Medusa Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Like, I'm trying to get people to submit my article in no time, but it always fails. Somehow due to DoubleGrazing rejecting it which stinks. Nowadays, maybe I'll have to redo my article again though? I don't like this problem. I-I mean, I don't know what is wrong with Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Plus, sometimes when they see links or references I did, they constantly complain about it. I shouldn't be stupid to realize what's the big deal. Can someone please help me submit to all my article and publish them? Show me how! Masierra2008 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Masierra2008: please make that paid-editing disclosure already. We shouldn't have to keep asking. And after that, answer my question about other user accounts. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we stop feeding the troll. Theroadislong (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 89.76.11.134 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jan Chojnan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I would like to know. What is wrong with the sources here? The same sources are accepted in German version. Even if Lower Sorbian version doesn't provide necessary sources, German version does(even though the text of the article is exactly the same as in Lower Sorbian, Upper Sorbian and probably Lithuanian too). Anyway, Jan Chojan was really the first author who wrote Lower Sorbian in 1650 ;) Can you tell me what additional sources I should find? Thanks for your help. Kind regards. 89.76.11.134 (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lower Sorbian grammar in 1650 ;)

89.76.11.134 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this I feel I would have treated it as an acceptance. I am about to do that for you. There are some lacks in the citation formant but those can be solved in mainspace 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with my learned friend, but just for future reference: it isn't enough to say that sources exist in the corresponding article in another language version of Wikipedia; they need to be imported and cited here. Also, whether particular sources were deemed sufficient for acceptance in another language version doesn't matter, as each version is entirely separate with their own rules and requirements. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, DoubleGrazing. The reason for moving it to be an article now is that these issues can, and should be fixed now it is an article. This does not mean, IP editor, that you need to do it, but it would be helpful if you would do so.

Please read {{cite book}} as an example of better use of a reference.

Now, let us deal wth addition referencing. A person so far back in history may be difficult to reference. I based my acceptance on the one strong fact for notability - the first dictionary in Sorbian. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rubyzinner (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jonathan Abrams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is not getting published! Rubyzinner (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubyzinner: I assume you mean Draft:Jonathan A. Abrams? This draft has been rejected for lack of notability, that's why it isn't getting published. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but he is rebranding to Jonathan Abrams (no middle A) so I changed it on his project pages but need to change it here as well. Also while you are here - can you please help me change the image on Meghann Fahy's page? Rubyzinner (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, this subject has been deemed non-notable, and the draft won't therefore be published. Whether he is 'rebranding' or not, doesn't come into it.

For general editing advice, please ask at the Teahouse instead. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudzuboss123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nightshift at Barry's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What was wrong with it? I don't know what to fix for next time Kudzuboss123 (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no references. See Referencing for beginners. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic. 331dot (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• سنتوری (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Siavash Kamkar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just wanted to make the fair with objective facts that already is visible in another language (Farsi) so I just used Direct and some other different Blogs and Websites. I don't know how I can fix this issue. سنتوری (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was deleted as blatant promotion. The Farsi Wikipedia is a separate project, with its own editors and policies(and with the current Iranian regime it may be difficult for many Farsi speakers to edit it). What is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MakurProTyler (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Barnaba Bak Chol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to resubmit my draft. Help me MakurProTyler (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. C F A 💬 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kraznoljav (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Meri Khojayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I refrained from using Armenian references, but I found out that it is not very difficult to add. Would you advise to remove any information that is not (correctly) cited/referenced?

Thank you for clarifying Kraznoljav (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References do not need to be in English, as long as they are reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Philscijazz (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Samuel Krimm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm planning to remove remaining items/sections cited only by the CV (even though one person at the Help Desk suggested that, for notable academics, the CV would be citable - he is notable under academic criteria given his election to APS in 1959, plus his APS prize in 1977 and his Humboldt przie in 1983).

I'm hoping the rest qualify as sufficiently independent and reliable. But it may not be meaty enough for a full-fledged article.

Can this draft still be submitted as a Stub?

After all, the subject is mentioned on at least two Wikipedia pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fellows_of_the_American_Physical_Society_(1921%E2%80%931971)#1959

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Hobbs_Moore

Looking for guidance on any way this could be made acceptable for resubmission. Should I add some comments somewhere as I submit it, mentioning the academic notability and suggesting acceptance as a stub?

Or is this simply unfixable until such time as there is an obit that qualifies? Philscijazz (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz: you've asked this already at the Teahouse; please don't ask in multiple venues, as that just duplicates efforts in answering.

This person would appear to be notable per WP:NACADEMIC #3, if nothing else, so I will go and accept the draft as it's quite an easy accept. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, and apologies for the multiple asks. I'd been getting some conflicting advice and wanted to confirm a path forward (I omitted some additional detail that was only cited on self-written sources like CV, even if published on the university website). Thanks for finessing the grammar as well. Philscijazz (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Philscijazz: no worries.

For the record, I think it's pretty obvious that the APS fellowship and the Humboldt Prize make him notable. As long as those are reliably referenced, even just from primary sources as long as those sources can be assumed notable reliable (eg. university's faculty website), notability is established. That's all I really needed to know. (That, and that there aren't any copyright violations, wild unreferenced claims, etc., of which I found none.) In that sense, the lack of independent secondary sources was a bit of a red herring on this occasion. That's my rationale, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:240:4D01:A8E0:D19B:6C6B:1C0C:68BB (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:RIP HUNTERBLOX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

erm whyd u reject it 2601:240:4D01:A8E0:D19B:6C6B:1C0C:68BB (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is very very unlikely that any Roblox account has been written about in reliable sources sufficiently to make it notable in Wikipedia's meaning of the word. Also, your draft cites no sources at all.

A Wikipedia article is a summary of what reliable independent published sources say about a subject, that's all. If there are no such sources, then there is no article. ColinFine (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Finlay73 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Robin Otani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure what to do to get this page confirmed. I dont want to submit unless i am sure it is ready, as i wouldn't want to waste anyone's time. Please let me know what i need to do. Thankyou! Finlay73 (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay73 I don't know if it can be confirmed. The article subject does not appear to have been covered in a significant way by secondary sources. They are hence not notable enough to be included. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the British Judo Council (which is a huge organisation) confirms on their website that he is the current president. How many secondary sources are needed? He is mentioned in other secondary sources but ones I didn’t think had information worthy of being on his Wikipedia page. Sounds I just attach them in the references column anyway? Cheers Finlay73 (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the judo council may be notable, merely being the president of a notable company does not warrant someone getting their own article. Notability is not inherited. Sorry, but I have done a check and there is insufficient significant coverage to justify a stand alone article for this individual. I don't think it's a wise use of your time to try and expand it further, as if there is no notability, it cannot be moved to mainspace. Thanks — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gulshan99 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tarun chugh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Team,

My name is Gulshan Pandey. I am working on an article about an Indian politician named Tarun Chugh. Unfortunately, it has been deleted or moved to draft several times, and I am unsure what mistakes I am making. Previously, I created the page for "Sonawari Assembly constituency," which was published on the first attempt, but this time I am having difficulty getting the article published. I have included many prominent media links as references. Could you please suggest what I should do to ensure the article meets the necessary standards?

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards, Gulshan Pandey

Gulshan99 (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Tarun chugh

@Gulshan99: you created this article, it was moved to drafts, where you submitted it for review and it was declined. Unless you have other versions or earlier attempts at this, that seems to be all there is, so I'm not sure that qualifies as "several times".

I also note that you've resubmitted the draft after it was declined without making any improvements to it whatsoever. Please do not do that, it is a surefire way to get your draft rejected. The idea is that when a draft is declined, the reason(s) for the decline are outlined in the decline notice, and your job is to address those reasons before resubmitting. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Prominent media links" is not what we're looking for. We need to see significant coverage of this person, in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent. Note that this excludes passing mentions, routine election coverage and similar, interviews, anything where the subject himself is commenting on other matters, etc. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Within the summary for one of your edits to this, you write: "I appreciate your concern regarding the possible Conflict of Interest." Is there a conflict of interest? -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shom.analytics (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sahajidah Hai-O Marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi can I seek advice on this? Because I have edited and water down everything to be neutral and just describing what the company does. Shom.analytics (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shom.analytics: that's as may be, but you haven't produced any evidence of notability, and therefore the draft has now been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't want just a description of what the company does. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shom.analytics You are a self declared paid editor. Please use your pay to fund your time to learn about policies here by studying them. Please start with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOT. There is no reason for the majority of amateur editors to spend their time helping you to get paid. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jaykay9090 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Álvaro Martínez Bueno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting assistance because my article submission on Álvaro Martínez Bueno was not accepted, despite my efforts to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. The reviewer mentioned issues with the reliability of sources, the formal tone, and a potential conflict of interest (COI). I have carefully selected sources, ensured a neutral and formal tone, and I have no personal connection to the artist. However, I am struggling to identify where I might have gone wrong. I would greatly appreciate guidance on how to improve my article to meet Wikipedia’s standards, particularly in addressing the concerns raised by the reviewer. Jaykay9090 (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The style section is completely unsourced. Every substantive fact about a living person must be sourced, per WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a quick look, few if any of your sources meet the triple criteria of being reliably published, wholly independent of Bueno, and containing significant coverage of Bueno (not just of particular workds). See WP:42 for more detail.

A Wikipedia article must be mostly based on such sources: without several such, no article is possible, because no article can establish that he meets the criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 152.2.251.129 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yeidy Eish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article keeps getting declined. What am I doing wrong? I have included inline references, both internal and external to wikipedia. What is the magic ticket? Thanks 152.2.251.129 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included the reason why it was declined. It 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 music-related topics). 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." 152.2.251.129 (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this message describes, your sources do not demonstrate notability. See WP:BIO.

Please log in when posting. You seem to have a connection with this person as you took a very professional looking image of her and she posed for you. You must disclose this connection, see WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "magic ticket" is finding sources that are not just reliably published, but are wholly independent of the subject, and contain significant coverage of the subject specifically: see WP:42. Citing an article which is mostly an interview is of very limited use: citing the same article four times in different publications sends the message "I'm so desperate to find something to cite that I'll cite the same thing four times and hope people don't notice" which in turn suggests that there are probably simply not enough sources to establish that Eish meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. ColinFine (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dupontgeorgea (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Dupontgeorgea/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I see people on Wikipedia with their biography, why is this biography not allowed but others are? What distinguishes ones that are accepted and those that are not? Dupontgeorgea (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is completely unsourced. People do not "have biographies" here, Wikipedia has articles about people that meet our criteria. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about them topic. While not impossible, that is usually very difficult for people to do about themselves. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dupontgeorgea This text would be next to impossible to turn into a draft article. It would require a complete rewrite for tone, and full referencing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left 'm my usual deletion notice-- highly informative and well thought out. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Joieva (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jaye Sera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have followed all the instruction but I'm not sure why it's still rejected, what should I have done? Joieva (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joieva:, thanks for the post. Unfortunately, I must disagree with the claim that you followed all the instruction. You were advised several times that your draft did not meet notability guidelines. The rejections contained many links that explain how and what constitutes notability. Pointedly: notability requires significant coverage in secondary sources. The onus was on you to read the guidelines linked to you, and either you did not do so, or refused to follow them or seek further assistance to understand them. You continually submitted the article no less than six times despite being warned it would be rejected if you did not make the requested improvements, and then went ahead and put it forth a seventh. It has not been (correctly in my view) rejected on a final basis. You have continually failed to provide secondary sources, and so the rejector has correctly taken this to mean that no additional references exist, meaning subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. As the draft is rejected, I'm afraid you have no further recourse and must abandon your efforts here. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Dj Makosam Official (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Dj Makosam Official/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

please i dont know why you rejected my page Dj Makosam Official (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dj Makosam Official: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a channel for self-promotion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Francisasinatra (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Henry Buckley (American Jurist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The record-holder before Mr. Buckley had an article about him, so I am wondering why Mr. Buckley's case isn't notable enough. I think that I met my burden on providing relevant information about him. Please let me know how I can make this work. -Fred M. Francisasinatra (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Francisasinatra, did you look at the linked deletion discussion? Your first step needs to be overcoming the issues raised there. If you can do that, you'll also need some better sources - LinkedIn isn't acceptable, and your sources should discuss Buckley in some detail. Having his name listed along with other names isn't enough, and obituaries for family members don't tell us anything about him. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Abbaskip (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Overeem Whisky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I'd like to understand in further detail why this article is being declined. There are multiple independent sources, with articles written specifically about the distillery - which I understand to be the primary criteria (as well as others which are just referencing certain stated facts). The brand is an established brand, available at mainstream retailers throughout Australia - and the references are no different to those provided on multiple Scotch Whisky distilleries of a similar age. Abbaskip (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left an explanation on the draft, as well as other comments on the draft talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen other articles like yours, please identify them so we can take action. Other inappropriate articles existing cannot justify the addition of more inappropriate articles. 331dot (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip: which sources do you think establish notability per WP:NCORP? Because I only found one myself, the Oz Whisky Review, and even that I'm not too sure about.

Additionally, I was going to add promotionality as a second decline reason. This reads like an online brochure to me.

Whether their products are available at retailers is not a notability criterion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This sounds like an online brochure" is dismissive and entirely off the mark. Apart from the awards being mentioned, the article is generally about the history of the distillery, being founded, sold and bought back - plus the products they product. It's not a sales pitch at all.

Both Spirit Business references, Tasmanian Times article and the Shout all establish notability. Abbaskip (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem particularly invested in this topic. Are you associated with this business in some way?

The acquisition of this business by another, and the reversal of that acquisition, (what the Spirit sources document) are routine business activities that do not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way related to the business, I work in an entirely different industry, live in a different state and don't know the business owners. I do drink the whisky though, and have noticed that the Australian whisky industry is severely under-represented on Wikipedia (likely) due to these sorts of rejections.

You're essentially moving the goal posts for a notability - as world industry awards certainly establish notabiliy, otherwise no whisky brands would be on Wikipedia (when basically every distillery in Scotland is). Abbaskip (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the precise section in WP:NCORP where it says that a company becomes notable by virtue of its products winning some awards? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I'll provide you a list of 90% of Scotch whisky distilleries for your removal. Abbaskip (talk) 09:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, I cannot remove any page. I can request speedy deletion, or begin AfD discussion, but then again so can you. Feel free to take whatever action you deem appropriate with any articles that you feel aren't up to scratch, including of course improving them as the preferred option.

You may also wish to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to learn to understand how conversation english works, since you're such an expert on encylopedic articles - and realise that my comment was to make a point, not to have the articles deleted.

This article is simply not being accepted as the various moderators here haven't heard of the brand themselves. There is generally very little written media to reference for Spirits brands beyond articles outlining award winners, reviews and materials that could be deemed promotional.

Look at Tamdhu Distillery as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamdhu_distillery Abbaskip (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that English (or even 'english') is not my first language. None of us are perfect. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My typing certainly isn't perfect either (no edit in talk articles is strange), but I'd have thought that was a given in a back and forth (conversational) talk article.

I've removed a reference to "Casey's Shed" (despite this being a common whisky COMMUNITY term - not something 'affectionately known' by the industry or business itself (but hey, the wiki experts who know zero about Australian Whisky are here, so I need to get these things right).

I've added a CNN Travel reference, multiple other newspaper references - businesses buying businesses IS significant in the Australian whisky industry, especially when it's Lark (Australia's first established whisky distillery), and means the distillery moves with the purchase (something that was deemed sufficient notability in the Tamdhu Distillery article). Abbaskip (talk) 09:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not suggesting the Tamdhu article should be removed, nor that it's a bad article - simply that your standards of notability are off, due to your own biases. Abbaskip (talk) 09:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fettercairn_distillery

Another distillery page just like Tamdhu listing essentially nothing but ownership information, and with one of the references being a simple distillery profile on a page that has an indexed profile for all Scotch Whisky distilleries.

Again, the issue isn't that these pages shouldn't be accepted, it's the misapplied definition of notability being used for Overeem Whisky but not other Scotch distilleries. Abbaskip (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip "Again, the issue isn't that these pages shouldn't be accepted, it's the misapplied definition of notability being used for Overeem Whisky but not other Scotch distilleries. "

I disagree wholeheartedly. Instead t is that the English Language Wikipedia has made ts acceptance criteria more robust since many articles were placed here. The Wild West of the early days has gone, and our poachers of yore have either gone or Become gamekeepers. In that 'spirit' I have just flagged Fettercairn distillery for additional referencing.

This is something you can help with, should you choose to. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do the same with Tamdhu distillery?

You could also add Dalwhinnie Distillery? Another with similar sources.

In fact the vast majority of distillery articles have similar sources, because as mentioned this is what Notability looks like in the whisky industry. Abbaskip (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip That was done by another.

I am not sure that Dalwhinnie Distillery suffers from the same issues, but I have tagged it for inconsistent use of tense. I understand what you mean with regard to this industry. "Inherent notability" allows an article to exist, bit that does not say that referencing cannot be improved, nor that prose cannot be improved.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a substantial number of secondary, independent sources regarding Overeem whisky, the distillery etc now. Is it worth resubmitting now? I feel it's over referenced to be honest, and I'm finding it extremely hard to not make the primary article look more like a marketing piece than it apparently already is, but legitimately cite other references for notability. Essentially the things that make it notable are things that make it look a marketing piece. I've also changed some language and removed some pieces that should also make the article read less like a flyer.

Sincere thanks for your very useful feedback and honesty, really is much appreciated and helpful Abbaskip (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip Three references are contraindicated by their reliability:

• https://theshout.com.au/tassie-whisky-deal-lark-acquires-overeem/
• https://whiskymag.com/articles/icons-of-whisky-australia-2021-winners-announced/
• https://www.thatboutiqueywhiskycompany.com/blog/2023/01/29/return-to-oz

I would look at them with care and make a decision.

One source of over-referencing is the products section. Assuming you link in external links to the corporate website (just one link, please) and I have not checked, I would drop this entire section, unless a particular product is particularly special, when it needs a reference to say so.

I suggest you scour the prose for phraseology such as "returning to the family" whcih really is purple prose and eliminate anything that looks as if written for a magazine.

I feel it is acceptable currently, though somewhat vulnerable. Tightening it up, cutting elements, will remove the vulnerability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll look now. I understand that copying other articles is fraught with danger - however the product list is extremely common on Whisky Distillery Wikipedia articles, as it's an important aspect that defines the type of product the distillery offers, is factual and isn't subjective. The links were generally to the corp website and product range though, so I'll update.

I'm interested in why you think those references/sources are potentially not reliable?

I'll also work on language.

Thanks again Abbaskip (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip I have a gadget that colour codes them based upon a table of sources. I get Green, no colour, amber, and red. These are amber. That alerts a "Stare hard at this" response. One is a blog, which tend to be generated with limited or no editorial oversight. Without checking again, one feels very much like churnalism, and the other is one you should study based upon those clues.

Just because other articles on distilleries do something does not mean those are correct. These things become self perpetuating if we don't take care. No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip You might also reduce the number of citations per fact. Once cited it is cited. More is by no means necessarily better than a single citation. Choosing the best is key before discarding others.

Note that opinions here differ on this point. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry the multiple edits are because I was doing it on my phone. I was clearing up sources, removing some of those I figured weren't needed and also trying to make the language more succinct and encyclopedic in some places.

I believe I've addressed the issue around notability and sources already, and have removed some of the other sources. Abbaskip (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I redid the first section of the article referencing that the distillery was the 4th in Tasmania, that it was considered one of Australian Whisky's founding distilleries, and then redid most of the first paragraph of the History section to avoid double up, but it seems to have disappeared? I also can't find it in version history? Abbaskip (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abbaskip It cannot be absent from the history of the draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it again, based on your note. The prior edit mustn't have properly saved or similar. Abbaskip (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to edit your own comments to fix errors- click "edit" in the section header. 331dot (talk) 11:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks for this. Abbaskip (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out another problematic article that needs action taken- I've marked it as such. We're only as good as those who participate, and we need help to weed out inappropriate content that isn't suitable as an example. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my opinion this is promotional, and I would have added that as a decline reason. You're entitled to have a different opinion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft actually says (affectionately known as "Casey's Shed"), which is so unencyclopedic and non-neutral and cloyingly promotional that it calls everything else into question. An encyclopedia does not instruct its readers what to be affectionate about. That's just the most blatant example of promotional content. I fully endorse "This sounds like an online brochure" which is what any experienced, uninvolved editor would say after reading this. Print it up on glossy paper and hand it out at adult beverage trade shows. Promotional editing is forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to remove that from the draft. That was a term used amongst the Australian Whisky Community (drinkers, not industry - I have no idea what they industry do). Abbaskip (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kanapala Zenith (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Why my article is declined? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Let me know necessary corrections in my article. Kanapala Zenith (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Kanapala Zenith/sandbox

Your draft is completely unreferenced, with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shamsuddin Haider (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:State Board of School Examinations (Sec.) & Board of Higher Secondary Examinations, Tamil Nadu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

problems in this article will be fixed now Shamsuddin Haider (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shamsuddin Haider: this draft has been rejected. If evidence of notability has come to light which wasn't available previously, you may appeal directly to the rejecting reviewer. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adari Aravind (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adari Anand Kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Iwaqar,

I'm Aravind from Visakhapatnam. The subject of this article belongs to a political family in Anakapalle district and he leads a 2000+ crores annual turnover dairy company called Visakha Dairy. So, I kindly request you to do research on him and revert for the consideration of publishing it into Wiki.

Thanks & Regards, Aravind Adari Aravind (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adari Aravind unfortunately you did not think to provide references to show what, if any, notability the subject has, which has led to rejection. You share names with the subject. If this is an autobiography may I counsel you against creating one. Very few people indeed are able to be unbiased about themselves.

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Please read HELP:YFA and WP:REFB.

This place is for asking for assistance, not for asking someone to create your (presumed) autobiography. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consider the draft now which has references added. Thanks. Adari Aravind (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adari Aravind: The burden of meeting our sourcing and content policies is on those who want the content created/added, not on helpers at a noticeboard. You need to put in the work and look for sources if you want the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly consider the draft now which has references added. Thanks. Adari Aravind (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft hasn't been edited since it was declined. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Finlay550 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Luke pickles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, just wondering further in detail what the minimums are? Cheers. Finlay550 (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Finlay550! The subject of your draft does not appear to be notable per the biographies notability guideline. Please find a few in-depth, third-party sources that establish their notability. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Finlay550 Certainly. Please read WP:BIO which should give you a great baseline 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Finlay550. Your draft has two sources, neither of which is reliable (that's right, we don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, because it is user-generated), and neither of which is about Pickles.

A Wikipedia article should be a summary of what indepedent reliable sources have published about the subject - nothing less, and very little more. ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Warshipnyc (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Venhue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I’m trying to help document unique restaurants in New York City, starting with my neighborhood of East Village. Is there anything specific for this page that needs to be edited for approval? A friend of mine did Foxface Natural’s page Warshipnyc (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Warshipnyc Unique does not always, perhaps does not often, equate to passing WP:NCORP, which you should study.

This draft was rejected yesterday, which means it will not proceed further 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Warshipnyc. The way that you wrote the article makes it seem like you're interested in promoting the business. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 16:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Cooldudeseven7 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fuller GT Magnet Elementary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have gotten declined once and at the moment I have done a lot of changes and also got quite alot of help from other wikipedians. I would like to know if my article, Fuller GT Magnet Elementary is suitable for resubmission? If not, please notify me with tips. Thank you, Cooldudeseven7 (Discuss over a cup of tea?) 17:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cooldudeseven7: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, but a quick scan through the sources tells me they're all either primary, or routine business reporting, neither of which contributes towards notability per WP:ORG. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooldudeseven7, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which says Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). Your draft does not make a clear claim to notability. If a school is on the National Register of Historic Places or the equivalent in other countries, then it qualifies. If the school's architecture is so unusual and distinctive that it has been written about extensively in multiple reliable architecture magazines and books, then it qualifies. Winning an award from a non-notable organization that is also given to 279 other schools is not a clear claim to notability. And piping "Magnet school" to "Magnet Schools of America" is poor quality editing because it implies that the notability of that organization has been established, and it hasn't. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Laurisam (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Prytanean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My Wikipedia submission was rejected because it was deemed “not sufficiently notable.” I believe it does meet the criteria but may need guidance on how to better demonstrate this. Could you advise on how to strengthen the article? Laurisam (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laurisam Rejection means that resubmission is not possible. An organization being old doesn't make it notable. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss how the organization is notable as defined by Wikipedia that you have not yet provided, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. 331dot (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nangthang (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:PDF Zoland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I been trying make PDF Zoland (Zomi Federal Union) Articles, it keep getting deny. How can I improve it? Nangthang (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told several times why your article keeps being rejected. It's a short stub without sufficient sources. Please go back and read the templates and comments left on the draft. Thanks — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TorhoKO (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Helena Koch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, my submission has been declined a couple of times - and I'd like to get help in editing. I think the author is indeed worth an article on wiki, just like many other of her generations' authors from Estonia already have. I've provided lots of third party sources, that confirm her notability so I'd really like to get an perspective on what to change to get approval for the article. Thank you very much for your assistance. TorhoKO (talk) 06:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TorhoKO: the sources are book reviews, a database entry, and links to Finnish and Latvian publishers of her books, none of which contribute anything towards notability for her (though the book reviews might help make the books notable).

Whether "many other of her generations' authors from Estonia" are featured in Wikipedia articles isn't how we determine notability. She will have to establish notability in her own right, either via the general WP:GNG or the special WP:AUTHOR guideline. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TorkhoKO, in all honesty, I have my doubts that an Estonian writer who has published four childrens' books is a convincing claim to notability. In the 21st century publishing ecosphere, I could write four children's books tomorrow, one about a baby eagle, one about a baby raven, one about about a baby sea otter, and for my granddaughter, one about a unicorn colt with rainbow coloration, and have all four published immediately if I have enough money to spend. Your draft needs to make it clear how this this author meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you might be able to write them but I wonder if you can repeatedly secure support by the Estonian cultural endowment for their publication and translation. So I beg to differ and I'll add a reference to the cultural endowment selecting to support the publication. Also the publishers are not random self-publishing houses but established Estonian publishers. 80.235.122.205 (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not exclusively book reviews, her books have been repeatedly selected as some of Estonia's most beautiful books. And being translated and published in both Finland and Latvia is a notable achievement as well. 80.235.122.205 (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if her books have been awarded or picked on some 'most beautiful' lists, these feats might help make those books notable, but unless we're talking Pulitzer or Nobel calibre recognition, they really won't make her notable. And having books translated really is no achievement, either, especially children's books (stereotypically, lots of pretty pictures and very little text).

I'm not categorically saying this person couldn't be notable, but so far there has been no evidence of that.

BTW, please remember to log in whenever editing. Thanks, --- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how one of her books being placed on somebody's list of 30 "beautiful books" published in Estonia or Latvia or Finland is a claim of notability. There are countless media outlets that publish "Top 25 under 25" listicles, and such "award" lists are ubiquitous on the internet. Similar list articles do not establish notability unless the awarding organization and the award itself are the subjects of Wikipedia articles, and the receipt of the award is covered in reliable sources independent of the awarding organization itself. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.. so are you claiming there's only Pulitzer recipients on wiki? @Cullen328 It's Estonia and not just some list but an annual competition and selection by a jury of experts organised by the Estonian Writers Union.

I really get your points and I would like to appreciate them, but they seem quite distanced from reality working as an author in North-Eastern Europe and getting public money to have books published and translated and featured by established outlets in recognizing their notability. I assume I should have made this article in Estonian first, then there would be editors maybe understanding the context better. TorhoKO (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say only Pulitzer-winning authors can have articles in Wikipedia. I said that if you're relying on winning prizes or awards to establish someone's notability, those have to be of significant standing (and even then, it's far from clear that notability can be thus established).

You're certainly welcome to create this article in the Estonian Wikipedia (assuming you can satisfy their notability and other requirements, of course). The English-language one is not 'special' or 'superior' in any way, it just happens to be the biggest.

And not that it matters in the slightest, but as it happens, I have a somewhat better understanding of North-Eastern European circumstances than you might think. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it somehow significant that this author obtains public money to publish her work? The US has a similar program. If you're saying that the fact she obtains public money makes her notable, that would probably be the same as receiving an award- that government program would need to be shown to be notable first. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TorkhoKO, I do not see the Estonian Writers Union mentioned in your draft. Am I wrong? If not, why not? I am not saying or hinting or implying that the Pulitzer Prize is the only notable award for literature. There are clearly hundreds or even thousands of such awards that are the subjects of Wikipedia articles that establish the notability of such awards, and winning a notable award is a piece of evidence in favor of notability. But they need to be properly referenced in the draft. I see no claim that she has received a notable award in your draft. Your comment maybe understanding the context better is not productive because your responsibilty as an author of this draft (perhaps eventually an article) is to make the context and the notability clear to any English speaking high school student in Nigeria or India or New Zealand, or even an older man like me living in California. We do not need Estonians in particular to detect notability. We need that evidence to be clearly present in the draft. We need rigorously written prose and supporting references that convince experienced Wikipedia editors from any country that this person is notable. I am not that hard to convince. Convince me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update - thanks for that remark. TorhoKO (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's significant to get this kind of support, cause there's an expert jury that looks at applications and decides which kind of literary works they want to support. Thanks for you comment. TorhoKO (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Himaldrmann (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm confused by the "AfC" thing—the pages on article creation seem to suggest that I can simply create an article and didn't need to go through the review process, since my account and # of edits meet or exceed the requirements to do so.

Is this the case? If so, how do I, uh, un-submit my article (Draft:Hinc illae lacrimae) & just publish it, instead of waiting 4+ months(!)?

(Not that it's really urgent or anything... but still! It took several hours for all the phrasing, sourcing, & OCD-editing... so I want it accessible, darn it! :P)

Cheers & thanks,

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Himaldrmann: usually you could literally just undo your submission, but seeing as you created the whole thing in a single edit, that's not an option. You can remove all the AfC templates from the draft, but that's a bit messier.

You can then move the article into the main space, which will have the effect of removing the Draft: prefix from its title. New page patrol will then come along at some point to run the proverbial ruler over it.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

One request for clarification, if you have an extra sec: does removing the Afc templates automatically move it into the main space, or is that some second action I must take afterward?

(Sorry, I OCD-edit wording/grammar on articles a lot but this is the first time I actually created one--I saw that the Lacrimae rerum article didn't have "hinc illae lacrimae" in the "See also:" section, and when I went to add it, I found there was no "hinc illae lacrimae" page... I'm supposed to be doing actual work, but, well, I just couldn't let that stand--... Lol!)

Cheers,

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, I think I see it (the "Move" link, surprisingly enough...).

NOW my only question is, re the templates: do I need to somehow remove "transcluded" templates (and if so, uh, how--)?

Thanks again, and my apologies for my slow(-in-the-head-)ness,

Himaldrmann (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Himaldrmann: no, removing the AfC templates doesn't move the draft into the main space, or v.v.

Let me know if you'd like me to do all that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himaldrmann, please be prepared to explain why this topic belongs on the English Wikipedia instead of Wikiquote. It seems more appropriate for that other website to me. Cullen328 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I don't know if it isn't more appropriate for Wikiquote or not—I based the decision to create it on Wikipedia partly because there would be room to explain a bit about & include examples of notable historical uses, and I had the impression Wikiquote entries were mainly "just the quote"; and partly on the fact that entries like Lacrimae rerum existed (...and I wanted the articles to include each other under "See also" as a pleasing symmetry, heh, because I'm obsessive-compulsive–).

But if more experienced editors object, I won't kick up a fuss or nothin'!

Himaldrmann (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! Please accept this sham trophy until I may craft you a better one: ✨🏆✨

Cheers once more 🥂,

Himaldrmann (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I didn't actually do anything, because another reviewer had already done the deed by the time I got there. But I'll keep the trophy in a safe place (aka. the pawn shop) until Theroadislong comes to claim it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This got me wondering what the origin of the word was and apparently it's ..."derived from the Greek tropaion, referred to arms, standards, other property, or human captives and body parts (e.g., headhunting) captured in battle". I'll let you keep it this time. Theroadislong (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arnavvibhuti (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Echoes Of Kotdwar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The book is available on Google books and multiple other sites globally. I am not able to add references. Kindly add references and create the article. Arnavvibhuti (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnavvibhuti I fixed your link, you need the "Draft:" portion. If you are unable to add references, the topic cannot be on Wikipedia. Any article about this topic must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. The text that is there now- even if it were sourced- is a blatant advertisement. That's not permitted on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arnavvibhuti: sorry, but that's not how this works, we don't fulfil article creation requests here at the help desk. If you want Draft:Echoes Of Kotdwar to be accepted, you need to provide evidence that it is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaeez06 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Matha Senior Secondary School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clarification on Reference Requirements for School Articles Hello,

I recently submitted a Wikipedia article for Matha Senior Secondary School but it was declined due to insufficient references. I understand the importance of citations, but I noticed that similar school articles, like the one for Bishop Moore Vidyapith, Cherthala , have been accepted with only a single citation from the official school website.

Given that Matha Senior Secondary School is a well-established educational institution, I believe the reference requirements might be more flexible, especially since it is common for school articles to have limited external sources. Could you please clarify why the article was declined and provide guidance on what constitutes sufficient referencing for school articles? Additionally, how can I ensure that my submission meets the necessary standards?

Thanks in advance. Kaeez06 (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaeez06: we don't assess drafts by comparing them to whatever may exist out there among the nearly 7m articles in the English-language Wikipedia; we do so by reference to the currently applicable policies and guidelines. And no, those requirements are not 'flexible', they are pretty much hard and fast. This draft needs to demonstrate that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:ORG, and it currently falls well short of either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaeez06 (EC) fixed your header, the name of the draft is supposed to go where you had "Clarification..." written. Just because another article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are many ways to get inappropriate articles past us, and you would not be aware that they were inappropriate as an inexperienced user. We haven't yet gotten around to removing all the inappropriate articles, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, when they can. See other stuff exists. Many articles about schools were created before policies were tightened up a few years ago(see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) and existence is no longer sufficient to merit an article. The school must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization.

If you would like to help us, please point out other inappropriate articles on schools so we can take action. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Parsita (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hrishikesh Majumdar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What information i am missing? I understand the importance of citation. I have cited links from reliable sources about the subject including newspaper journals. I have taken reference of another wikipedia subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishaan_Ghosh. Please assist. Parsita (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social media is not a reliable source. YouTube is not a reliable source, unless the video is from a reputable media outlet on its verified channel. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An acceptable Wikipedia article is a summary of what independent reliable sources have published about the subject: nothing less, and very little more. As far as I can see not one of your citations is to a reliable source that is wholly unconnected with Majumdar and contains significant coverage of Majumdar. That means that you have nothing at all to base your draft on, and it cannot possibly be an acceptable article. ColinFine (talk) 14:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realiable If there another way to send a Screen here it would Second to it takes secong to submit Jweighed1 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jweighed1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Abusing the Auth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

for safety Measure Of Fraud And Zero Trust Artificial Intelligence Law Jweighed1 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jweighed1. You apparently submitted your sandbox User:Jweighed1/sandbox, but that has no content. (Another editor has undone the submission).

Please read WP:YFA to understand how to create a Wikipedia article.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. ColinFine (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rresha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Daddi Cool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what do i need to reference in this article to get it approved Rresha (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First you can tell us what your relationship is with him, as it appears he attempted to write this text himself at Draft:Magnus Achor. You might also want to let him know that he has likely improperly claimed the photo(with a watermark) as his own personal work and has improperly claimed that he personally owns the copyright. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ansaar20 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Yibaman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please add this is new company Ansaar20 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ansaar20: If it is a new company then the odds are it cannot meet the requirements for a Wikipedia article at this time. We are not a directory or billboard. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SUNIL SUNDARI (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:SUNIL SUNDARI/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am Sunil kumar meena

My Wikipedia page should be made public My Wikipedia page should be made public SUNIL MEENA (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia NOT social media. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SUNIL SUNDARI: Absolutely not. We are not going to accept an unsourced two-sentence "article" on a living person. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Robertabonaldo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:João Paulo Krajewski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

problems having article accepted Robertabonaldo (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Xinwang822 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shao Li (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer,

Please specify which reference does not meet the requirements. Do you give examples of references that meet the requirements? I will modify it as required, thank you! Xinwang822 (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]