Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

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


May 31[edit]

02:20, 31 May 2024 review of submission by KImMoro[edit]

Good day, I tried creating a page for Photographer Karl-Edwin Guerre, however it stated that the content may not meet the guidelines. Can you let me know what needs to be changed as there are references online to the subject. Thank you. Kim KImMoro (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KImMoro the draft was deleted under G11, which means it was blatant promotion. I am not an administrator and therefore cannot see the draft, but a quick Google search found almost no useable sources. Please read our notability guidelines for photographers and other creative professionals. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:41, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Ananthua9560b[edit]

Please help me complete the draft and make it suitable for wikipedia Ananthua9560b (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ananthua9560b: see WP:REFB for advice on referencing, and WP:ORG on notability. Your draft lists (without citing) two sources, the first of which is completely useless, the other insufficient to verify the draft contents or to establish notability of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Why are we suddenly seeing all these drafts on Indian military units? Is there some sort of coordinated effort to create these? If so, can you tell us who is coordinating this, please? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:56, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Amar Nath Sehgal[edit]

I do not know how to add references. Most of the information in the article is from personal interview and discussions from the museum owner. So I do not know how to reference it. Amar Nath Sehgal (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocked indef) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Jessie GYU8[edit]

Hello, I'm Jessie GYU8, the creator of this draft. I left this message because there are some problems.

First, I found out that I can't submit the draft again, and the reason is I did not change my draft's content. I'm sorry for that, but I tried my best to avoid sentences that are "peacock", and also tried to verify that this draft is available to be included by Wikipedia.

Second, if there is any way that I can submit the draft, please let me know. I pay a lot of attention to this draft.

Please guide me to solve these problems. I would be so appreciative of that. Jessie GYU8 (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessie GYU8: just to be clear, I didn't reject this draft because you hadn't made changes. I rejected it because, even after multiple previous declines, there was no evidence at all that the subject is notable, and given that no further evidence was offered since the previous submission, I could only conclude that none was available. For that reason it would also be pointless to resubmit this, as it stands; it would only have to be declined again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply.
If I can find more evidence to certify that it's notable, do I have a chance to submit this draft? Jessie GYU8 (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessie GYU8: if you have evidence that wasn't made available earlier, you can add that to the draft, and let me know, I will then take a look. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
Does this mean I can add the evidence to my draft and don't need to submit it again because you can read it? Should I just leave a message on your user page?
This message is very helpful. I will try my best to make the draft notable. Sincerely, thank you for your reply. Jessie GYU8 (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessie GYU8: yes, technically speaking you can still edit the draft, you just can't submit it again. And adding the evidence of notability there is much easier for anyone to assess, than if you come eg. here with it, because that way it can be seen in context.
Appeals against rejection are made directly to the rejecting reviewer, in this case me. So yes, you can come by my talk page to let me know whenever you're done with editing. Only do that, though, when you have a solid case, as I will only review this one more time. You are paid to edit this, not me, and I will not be dragged into co-editing or iterating with you.
Also, be aware that none of the four sources you currently have contribute anything towards notability, so you have quite a lot of work to do, going from zero to unequivocal notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your reminder, it really helps me a lot.
I will leave a message to let you review the draft until it has notability.
And here is the last question: if there are other troubles, such as the draft still having problems that need to be solved, do I still have a chance to edit the draft and it will be transferred to another reviewer, or is this the last chance?
Sincerely thanks for your reply. Jessie GYU8 (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:12, 31 May 2024 review of submission by ItsVishalBawa[edit]

Hi Team Please help me to Realise this article ItsVishalBawa (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ItsVishalBawa You have submitted it for review and it is pending. It is unlikely to be accepted, as you only have a single source. An article must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability- in your case, a notable musician.
It appears you are writing about yourself- Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Please read the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can i change my user name. 122.163.173.233 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you log in and then tell me on your user page(User talk:ItsVishalBawa) what new username you want, I can change it for you. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsVishalBawa: can't do that, but I will go and decline it.
Your user name has been queried many times. Are you the Vishal Bawa that you're writing about? If you are, please read and understand WP:AUTOBIO.
Or if you're not (as you seem to be suggesting on your talk page, if I've deciphered it correctly), then you must change your username, as it is misleading. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it seems my learned friend Theroadislong got there first. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:54, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Rihanshariar12[edit]

Why am i doing this Rihanshariar12 (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rihanshariar12 that isn't really a question we can answer, but your draft was tagged for deletion under G11, meaning that it is blatant promotion. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pubbilshed this page but it failed Rihanshariar12 (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean pubilshed this page but failed Rihanshariar12 (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because it was draft Rihanshariar12 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the place for you to tell the world about yourself. You should use social media to do that. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You submitted the draft for review, and it was rejected by a reviewer. Please see WP:AUTO and Help:Your first article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:00, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Shelby Beaven[edit]

I’m very sorry for any inconvenience, I’m new here and I thought I could write an article about myself. Is there any way I could publish it or get any one to write it for me? Again I am very sorry for misunderstanding, thank you Shelby Beaven (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shelby Beaven. Your draft was declined multiple times, but you kept re-submitting with no changes. Now since I have rejected the draft you will not be able to submit it again. You are not notable by our standards and do not merit an article, and you really should not be writing about yourself anyway.
Let me know if you have any questions, Qcne (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:00, 31 May 2024 review of submission by ItsJustGiraffe13[edit]

Someone please help add some more cites and add more information! ItsJustGiraffe13 (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. It's up to you to have sources in hand before you begin the process of writing a draft, not write the draft first and then look for sources to support it- see WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I just want to say, it was already rejected for that before I started working on it. I just want to make things right in hopes for it to be published in the future. 😅 Thanks for the help though! I will see what I can do! ItsJustGiraffe13 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can fundamentally change the draft to address the reasons for rejection, you may ask the rejecting reviewer to reconsider. 331dot (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Thanks! ItsJustGiraffe13 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've seen this covered extensively in Finnish mainstream media this week, so shouldn't be too difficult to establish WP:GNG notability, now that the game is actually out. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:01, 31 May 2024 review of submission by Ah507[edit]

I've added more sources from notable news outlets about the subject, do see if it still qualifies under WP:N. Thanks! Ah507 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ah507 It was rejected. So I doubt it will proceed further 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ah507 Your sole edit to this draft was this one, made on 23 October 2023. Please explain "I've added more sources from notable news outlets about the subject"? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 1[edit]

08:17, 1 June 2024 review of submission by Sanketmore-patil[edit]

For creating Personal Page For Myself Sanketmore-patil (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sanketmore-patil don't. Creating autobiographies are strongly discouraged. Your draft is blatant promotion and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:50, 1 June 2024 review of submission by SREEJESH PADMARAJAN[edit]

kindly update the details SREEJESH PADMARAJAN (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SREEJESH PADMARAJAN: what do you mean? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SREEJESH PADMARAJAN Please provide suitable references 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:11, 1 June 2024 review of submission by 172.77.252.52[edit]

I don’t know 

172.77.252.52 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has just been deleted as blatant promotion. Wikipedia is not for advertising your service. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 1 June 2024 review of submission by User5428778[edit]

There are multiple sources which are reliable sources that cover Caleb Wu. What is missing to make the Wikipedia page notable? User5428778 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User5428778 Notability. This shows possible WP:BLP1E which is doubtful. bit not his passing WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:47, 1 June 2024 review of submission by GlosHistoryBuff[edit]

Hi, I'm new to Wiki editing and seeking clarification of why this proposed article was rejected because it "is not adequately supported by reliable sources." Of the nine references cited in the draft page, I accept that one is to the website of the article subject, however the other eight are references to independent sources including the UK government register of companies and register of charities, the UK royal family's official list of charities and patronages, and several different news sources unconnected with the topic of the article. I'd also like to challenge the lack of notability argument, it has at least as much notability as existing/accepted articles on similar organisations such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gloucestershire_Society. I'm not sure if there is an appeal process, but if there is not, any advice on how to make this article fit for publication would be appreciated. Thank you. GlosHistoryBuff (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined not rejected, sources need to be independent as well as reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question you need to ask yourself is, Where have people, wholly unconnected with the Company, chosen off their own bat to write at some length about the Company, and been published in reliable places? If the answer is "nowhere", then there cannot be an article.
I don't see a single source in your draft that meets that description.
As for existing articles: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ColinFine (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:44, 1 June 2024 review of submission by Dr pangloss[edit]

I wanted to iterate and saw draft as the best way to do that before going live. I used AfC because I had never done it before, previously I moved something from draft to main, as the tutorial says ("just go for it!").

As soon as clicking submit, I was told there were thousands of articles and a review could take months. I then decided to just move it as the tutorial states and I had done before.

I looked for some way to back out an AfC request but I didn't see it. Once a user submits something for feedback, is he locked into waiting for feedback and the page cannot go to main until that feedback is given? Thanks Dr pangloss (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr pangloss: the short answer is, most users are in most cases free to publish directly, without having to go through the AfC process. (Exceptions being where the user hasn't the necessary permissions, or is under some sort of community-imposed restrictions, or has a conflict of interest).
The longer answer is that once your article has been moved back to drafts (especially by a highly experienced administrator), and the draft has then been declined, it wouldn't be wise to publish it at this stage, as that would effectively be disputing the draftifier's and reviewer's assessments of the articles readiness for publication. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! My article had not been reviewed when I posted this. It happened maybe 2 mins after. I will improve it and ask the reviewer what he considers better sources. In my area, the state historical review journal and the national register of historic places are the top citations you could have for an article on a historic neighborhood, but review says poor sources. Dr pangloss (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr pangloss: apologies, I didn't realise this was only declined after you had posed the question. (I think my point is still valid, either way, though.) Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article was rejected for three reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 3[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I had some questions about citations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 4[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 5[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy ping @Umakant Bhalerao Qcne (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While waiting for the reviewer to come and hopefully answer the author's question, can I just say that IMO this draft is not written in an encyclopaedic manner, but rather as an essay or exposition of some sort (with quite a promotional feel to it, too, especially in what comes to this Maroto chap), and therefore will require quite comprehensive editing. That would also provide an opportunity to ensure that the content is based firmly on what reliable and independent published sources have said about this topic, avoiding any original research or synthesis, polemic, and promotionality. In other words, I would have also declined this, but probably for different reasons (essay, POV). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@Alexendrew: Given the tone of your request, it's not surprising the draft itself was deleted as blatant promotion. What is your connexion to Akon? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 16:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Md. Tusar Akon is a notable public figure and researcher. The article is intended to provide verifiable, neutral information about his contributions. I will revise it to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s standards. Please allow the draft to be improved instead of deleted. Alexendrew (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 6[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1227505041"