Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk

Main page

Talk page

Submissions Category — List (sorting)

Showcase

Participants Apply — By subject

Reviewing instructions

Helpdesk

Backlog drives

Ask a new question Please check back often for answers.

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

• 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Articles for deletion/Wrightspeed X1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can anyone move this to the AFDs? 2A01:36D:1200:94F:1124:669:E55F:EAC8 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an AfC matter, as that 'draft' was never meant to be a draft in the first place. Besides, you've already asked for help at the Teahouse; please don't ask in several places, as that's redundant. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 194.75.93.220 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can I evidence that this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article? Equivalent Special Interest Groups and other local government sector bodies, such as the National Association of Local Councils, District Councils' Network, County Councils Network and Core Cities Group, have an equivalent range of sources to what I have provided, but still have a Wikipedia page. 194.75.93.220 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ORG, you need to provide multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG notability standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:BADHAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Actually I have created this page named BADHAN from this reference https://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%81%E0%A6%A7%E0%A6%A8 And recently I am working as a volunteer of this organization. This is an one of the biggest humanitarian organizations in Bangladesh. I think you should reconsider this draft to publish in English Wikipedia. Regards Md. Muqtadir Fuad Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Md. Muqtadir Fuad: I've already answered on my talk page, please don't post the same request in several places. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Understood Md. Muqtadir Fuad (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Deepaknarwal003 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Deepak Narwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why it deleted? Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepaknarwal003: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion or 'telling the world about yourself'. Try LinkedIn etc. instead. And please read the notices posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a public figure, social media influencer with more than 200k followers, acting done in Sons kf the soil, and indian kabaddi player, so for real and authentic info this page is important for social media verification of real accounts Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's as may be, but nothing in what you say negates anything I said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me a international kabaddi player deserves a wikipedia page or not??? You can search on google for real proofs:- Deepak Narwal is a professional kabaddi player, social media influencer and well known person on internet who has more than 200k pkus followers, please don't delete page its important for social media verification. Deepak narwal have a imdb page also who worked in Sons of the soil & Pro Kabaddi league. Deepaknarwal003 (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepaknarwal003: you seem to be misunderstanding what is required for an article to be accepted. Your content is first of all completely unreferenced (and no, a Twitter link doesn't count), which is totally unacceptable in articles on living people. Secondly, there is zero evidence of notability, which is demonstrated through sources, not by being "a [sic] international kabaddi player" or having X number of social media followers. And finally, as I've already explained, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, no matter what; see WP:AUTOBIO for explanation of why this is. And to make matters worse, you keep spamming us with this content incessantly. My advice is to stop now, before you find yourself blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hannah Zacharias (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

}}

Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannah Zacharias: I assume you're here regarding  Courtesy link: Draft:Clara Biermasz – what would you like to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am sorry but since I am a pianist, this is hard for me. I created this account under an alias. My name is Clara, my website is https://www.clarabiermasz.com/. I am a pianist and i am trying to create my own wikipedia page. I used the information i created for my website. As you can imagine, i am not a copywriter therefore i only created once a text that i plan on using everywhere. Please let me know how to proceed with the draft publishing as it is now rejected due to copyright. Thank you! Hannah Zacharias (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannah Zacharias Wikipedia is not perosnal web space. It is an encyclopaedia of notable topics. One does not have "one's own Wikipedia page", articles are written on notable entities. Do you pass WP:NMUSICIAN? If you do it is acceptable to draft an article in Draft: space, submitting it for review. It needs to be neutral prose.

Further, For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannah Zacharias Now, if, and only if, you qualify under WP:NMUSICIAN it is possible to re-use your copyright text if it is freely licenced for onward use. You can handle that on your web page by using a licence like the one Wikipedia uses. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ad1959 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Arup Kumar Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

-DoubleGrazing has been deliberately rejecting the drafts can someone help me get this article published as i have been in contact with some people linked with the personality and has been asked to publish this article, thank you in advance. Ad1959 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info: this matter is now at ANI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User is now blocked, as is their alternate account, User:Abhirup2441139. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Drmies. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FlorinCornianu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:123FormBuilder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! What other resources should I include in my draft? What it is missing particularly? FlorinCornianu (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlorinCornianu: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2020/04/building-web-forms-revolutionised/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
• https://engage.eif.org/eif-in-romania/success-stories/overlay/123formbuilder/ is 404-compliant. (It points me to a landing page with a link to the company's entry; clicking on that returns a 404 Not Found error.)
• https://www.superbcrew.com/123formbuilder-helps-users-without-technical-skills-create-any-type-of-online-form/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
• We can't use https://www.eif.org/what_we_do/resources/case-studies/jeremie-123-form-builder-romania.htm (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of articles written under role/no bylines because they almost always didn't undergo an editorial and fact-checking process.) Even if we could use it, it would be useless for notability (connexion to subject) as EIF helped fund 123.
• https://www.starterstory.com/online-forms-surveys-tool is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Written by company principal.
• https://www.prlog.org/12009450-123contactform-launches-form-making-app-for-wix-website-builder.html is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Clearly-labeled press release.
• https://socpub.com/articles/123contactform-launches-123-form-builder-weebly-15050 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Press release.
• https://www.romania-insider.com/catalyst-romania-puts-eur-1-mln-in-local-software-developer is useless for notability (routine coverage). Funding news.
• We can't use https://appexchange.salesforce.com/appxListingDetail?listingId=a0N3000000DylJTEAZ&tab=e (online storefront).
• We can't use https://cloudmybiz.com/app-of-the-week-123-form-builder-create-forms-collect-data-and-generate-leads/ (too sparse). Extremely perfunctory review that barely says anything about 123.
• Anything PRNewswire/Cision puts out is useless for notability as they only ever publish press releases (connexion to subject).
• https://enlyft.com/tech/products/123formbuilder is useless for notability (too sparse). Pretty much a content-free profile.
• https://mixergy.com/interviews/123formbuilder-with-florin-cornianu/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with company principal.
• We can't use https://www.g2.com/categories/online-form-builder (too sparse, connexion to subject). Listicle-styled app comparison, with each entry having a marketing blurb written by/on behalf of the apps' makers.
• We can't use Medium (no editorial oversight).
• https://www.capterra.com/resources/free-survey-software/ is borderline-usable, definitely a bit more on the skimpy side when it comes to information to cite.
• We can't use https://www.getapp.com/website-ecommerce-software/a/123contactform/features/ (online storefront).
• We can't use https://www.g2.com/products/123formbuilder/reviews#details (too sparse). Content-free profile.
• We can't use https://www.spotsaas.com/product/123formbuilder (online storefront).
• We can't use https://www.saasworthy.com/product/123formbuilder (too sparse). Other than the uncredited (and likely company-written) blurb in the "product description" section there's nothing to cite.

You have only one usable source ( https://www.websiteplanet.com/form-builders/123formbuilder/#overview ) and even then I'm not fully convinced this is usable, but it is your best source by a mile. One source by itself cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rincemermaid (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fido Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the first time that I'm creating a Wikipedia page for something and I need some tips to make sure that it would get declined again. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: You have only one source, and it's the awards' own website. Even if it were a in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-Fido-Awards news/scholarly source that discusses the awards at length, is written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial and fact-checking processes, one source by itself is not enough to support any Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references. Is there any else that I need to do? Rincemermaid (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where they've been added. Even purging my cache doesn't show new sources. Stand by while I assess them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous promotional marketing... "These prestigious awards recognize standout canine talents from all UK cinema releases throughout the year."? Theroadislong (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode. I will skip over your first source.

• https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/09/dog-film-stars-doggy-oscars-fido-award-anatomy-of-a-fall-barbie-napoleon looks good.
• We can't use https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ (unknown provenance). Role byline; who wrote this? (We're sceptical of sources under role/no bylines because they almost always bypassed the outlet's editorial/fact-checking processes.)
• https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/messi-anatomy-of-a-fall-dog-oscars-academy-awards-1235845408/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://deadline.com/2024/03/fido-awards-2024-anatomy-of-a-fall-canine-star-messi-finally-gets-his-oscar-moment-1235854967/ looks good.
• We can't use https://missdarcy.org/and-the-award-goes-to/ (no editorial oversight). Random blog.

One thing I will note is that the lot of these are about the '24 awards. If the award has been around since 2007 as the article claims it shouldn't be too difficult to find news reports for earlier awards cycles, and doing that would help with notability. With that said, as TRiL notes, the article would need to be heavily rewritten based on the good sources you have (the KISS principle applies to Wikipedia writing). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ , https://missdarcy.org/and-the-award-goes-to/, https://thedogsbusiness.pro/fido-awards-2024-celebrating-canine-stars/ , and https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/messi-anatomy-of-a-fall-dog-oscars-academy-awards-1235845408/. I did find two The Guardians about the Fido Awards from 2009, here are the links: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/nov/23/fido-awards-dogs-cinema , https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/nov/16/fido-award-canine-oscarsRincemermaid (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those Grauniad sources look good. I'd say you might have enough to show notability with those; the question now turns to rewriting the article based off of the information in the three Grauniad and one Deadline Hollywood source you have at present. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I dont understand why my submission was rejected as i feel like it perfectly aligned with the purpose of wikipedia and was sufficiently informative Kswuid (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was completely unsourced, you have much to learn about Wikipedia; please use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, what can I do to get my article allowed? Nelsenbrockfan (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you can do, it has been rejected. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nyjja (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Subtitlers' Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We added a new section and a new source to the article. Would it be possible to submit it again, please? Nyjja (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nyjja. Rejection usually means the end of the road for a draft, but you can reach out to the last reviewer @MaxnaCarta if you believe the draft has fundamentally changed since the rejection. Qcne (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice, @Qcne.

@MaxnaCarta: We added a new section (Honorary Membership) which links to personal Wikipedia pages of honorary members. Would you consider it a significant enough change to re-submit the draft? We wouldn't want it to be rejected for good, since we hope to reach the required notability in time and be accepted eventually. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Nyjja (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DeclanMiner2005 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ByteTech RoadPad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to write this draft better, and I will try again to write it better so it can be accepted. I am sorry, Wikipedia. I wish you a great day! :) DeclanMiner2005 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @DeclanMiner2005, the draft has been rejected so cannot be re-submitted. It is not a viable encyclopaedic article in it's current state. Maybe try writing a Blog? Qcne (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keppard123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:COMPOSITION album (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why was my entry rejected again? The reviewer did not leave an explanation. The previous reviewers wanted more references. I included quite a few. Please tell me what I am doing wrong so this can be accepted. The guitarist in question is a world class player and this is an important release. Thanks! Keppard123 (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why would you call this a test edit? This is a serious entry. Please respond when you can. Keppard123 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keppard123: The issue is that the draft is almost entirely critical reception, a tracklist, and credits; it should be a summary of what the album is, how it was produced, and the critical reception of it. Compare 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) or Odyssey Number Five, which are featured-class articles on albums. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TALARI ARUN KUMAR (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Traits of a Successful salesperson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I edited my article named "Traits of a successful salesperson". Please refer and approve it TALARI ARUN KUMAR (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TALARI ARUN KUMAR: We do not host op-eds. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Prathiksha1996 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:FloCareer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, this is the third time I am writing this article can you please help me which point sounds like an advertisement here so that I can edit it accordingly Prathiksha1996 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prathiksha1996: Before we continue, what is your connexion to FloCareer? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocked as sock.) DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Eeeenah0209 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:KWV House of Brandy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi There,

My recent submission has been declined for the following reason:

Resubmitted with no meaningful improvement, previous decline(s) still apply. Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at KWV South Africa instead.

The following article is on KWV Brandy, a label under the KWV umbrella, and therefore needs its own page. The existing KWV page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KWV_South_Africa) simply states the history and origin of the brand. The purpose of my article is to give more information about KWV Brandy and its varieties, along with all of its awards. Is there a there perhaps a way forward?

Eeeenah0209 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eeeenah0209: if you can show that KWV House of Brandy is independently notable, then it may be possible to have a separate article on it. (I'm not saying even then we necessarily should have a separate article, but it would be at least possible.)

Could you please respond to the conflict-of-interest query on your talk page? Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Zeeyas (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

According to my article reviewer, the article was declined due to insufficient published sources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and strictly independent of the subject. However, I believe that the references provided meet these criteria. I kindly need assistance in updating the article in a manner acceptable to Wikipedia. Zeeyas (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeeyas: so that we don't have to plough through nearly 50 (!) citations, could you please list here the three strongest ones in terms of meeting the WP:GNG / WP:ORG guideline, namely: secondary sources that provide significant coverage, directly of the subject, and that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. Note that passing mentions, routine business reporting, anything where a representative of the organisation is commenting or being interviewed, and anything that is based on press releases, sponsored content or other material originating with the organisation do not count. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Kindly see below a list of our three strongest citations based on the criteria:

1. https://www.macfound.org/grantee/shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation-39438/
2. https://luminategroup.com/investee/yaradua
3. https://statehouse.gov.sl/sierra-leones-president-julius-maada-bio-seeks-partnership-towards-promoting-purposeful-leadership-with-a-symbolic-visit-to-the-shehu-musa-yaradua-centre-nigeria/

Thank you. Zeeyas (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeeyas: DoubleGrazing may not be willing to take the time to assess 50 sources, but I am. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• We can't use https://www.developmentaid.org/organizations/view/153907/shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation (too sparse). Content-free profile.
• Everything that is on the yaraduafoundation.org domain is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• https://www.macfound.org/grantee/shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation-39438/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). As they've granted money to SMYF, they are considered to be affiliated with them. This is one of the three sources you proffered above.
• Reference 5 is missing required bibliographical information (page #).
• We can't use Find A Grave (no editorial oversight). Find A Grave's content is user-generated and not vetted, and pages there may contain plagiarised content.
• https://web.archive.org/web/20150627233756/http://www.punchng.com/news/buhari-to-speak-about-certificate-controversy-today/ is a non-sequitur. If a source does not so much as mention SMYF, then there's no chance it's a useful source in an encyclopaedia article about it.
• Reference 8 is missing required bibliographical information (page #).
• I cannot assess the Katsina Post article (technical barrier). Clicking the link instead queries localhost (i.e. my own computer).
• https://www.manpower.com.ng/people/15786/shehu-musa-yaradua is a non-sequitur. Coverage of the person doesn't equal coverage of the organisation that bears his name. We also couldn't cite this anyway (unknown provenance).
• Reference 11 is a duplicate of the Katsina Post cite.
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/06/08/a-quiet-revolt-against-abacha/e238a23e-0eae-4b35-9161-878003326486/ is a non-sequitur.
• https://www.irishtimes.com/news/nigerian-political-prisoner-dies-1.135778 is a non-sequitur. I'll be very blunt here: Every source that is about Shehu Musa Yar'Adua needs to be used in an article about him specifically - not in an article about the Foundation that bears his name.
• https://guardian.ng/opinion/remembering-shehu-yaradua-20-years-after/ is a non-sequitur, and we couldn't cite it anyways as it's an op-ed (no editorial oversight).
• I cannot assess https://allafrica.com/stories/200803101007.html (walled).
• https://statehouse.gov.sl/sierra-leones-president-julius-maada-bio-seeks-partnership-towards-promoting-purposeful-leadership-with-a-symbolic-visit-to-the-shehu-musa-yaradua-centre-nigeria/ is useless for notability (too sparse, gov't document). The Foundation is barely even mentioned as the article is more about Bio's actions at the Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Centre and comparing him to Shehu Musa Yar'Adua, and it's put out by Sierra Leone's government. This is one of the three sources you proffered above.
• We can't use https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/our-grants/awarded-grants/grants-database/shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation-147904/ (too sparse, connexion to subject). Granted money to SMYF, and the page has practically no content to cite.
• " " " https://luminategroup.com/investee/yaradua (" ", " " "). " " " ", " " " " " " " " ". This is one of the three sources you proffered above.
• We can't use https://www.devex.com/organizations/shehu-musa-yar-adua-foundation-smyf-112335 (too sparse). Content-free profile.
• https://www.newswire.com/news/yaradua-foundation-and-the-european-union-to-host-documentary is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Newswire only ever publishes press releases, so this was written by or on behalf of SMYF.
• https://blueprint.ng/women-should-be-recognised-as-drivers-of-sustainable-development-atiku-adejuwon/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with organisation principal.
• https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/11/unn-shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation-launch-whistle-blowing-portal-to-fight-sexual-harassment/ is useless for notability (routine coverage). Coverage of a launch of an online portal.
• https://www.fordfoundation.org/work/our-grants/awarded-grants/grants-database/shehu-musa-yaradua-foundation-135030/ has the exact same problems as the previous Ford Foundation cite (too sparse, connexion to subject).
• I am unsure if WE ACT is a reliable source by itself as far as reliability goes.
• Reference 26 is a duplicate of the Newswire cite.
• https://ace.soas.ac.uk/presentation-by-soas-ace-to-the-yaradua-foundation-in-nigeria/ is useless for notability (wrong topic). This is a 22-minute long presentation to SMYF lobbying them to rely on ACE's research.
• We can't use https://abujacityng.com/shehu-musa-yaradua-centre/ (too sparse). Photo gallery of a property.
• We can't use https://www.showsbee.com/company-1614-Shehu-Musa-YarAdua-Center.html (too sparse). Too short to cite, and in any event is about their HQ, not the Foundation proper.
• We can't use Reference 33 (wrong topic). This looks like part of a programme for a film festival, focusing on a documentary SMYF put out?
• https://guardian.ng/news/climate-change-threatens-agriculture-food-security-in-nigeria/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Article barely mentions the Foundation and doesn't discuss it at any length.
• We can't use https://www.eelive.ng/short-film-iamnotcorrupt-starts-the-conversation-every-nigerian-must-have/ (unknown provenance). Role byline. Even if we could cite it it'd be useless for notability (wrong topic).
• The This Day story is useless for notability (too sparse). Mentioned once in the article's lede and never again, with most of the article being effectively an op-ed by Monica Osagie.
• I cannot assess Reference 37 (technical barrier). Even if I could, it'd be useless for notability (gov't document).
• We can't cite random YouTube videos (unknown provenance). YouTube (and other video sites) can only be cited if (1) the video in question is published by an outlet we would ordinarily consider reliable and (2) that video is uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
• https://www.datagovernancehub.org/partnership/job-vacancy-consultant-evaluation-of-the-joint-civic-defense-fund-2020-2022- is useless for notability (too sparse). This appears to be a job-opening post about something tangentially-related to SMYF.
• https://www.partnersnigeria.org/sexual-harrassment-in-the-workplace/ appears to be a non-sequitur? It's useless for notability in any event (wrong topic).
• https://carmenmccain.com/2016/04/04/nowhere-to-run-wins-grand-jury-prize-at-the-green-me-film-festival-lagos-and-draws-further-attention-to-the-plight-of-the-ekuri-forest/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Blog of a filmmaker who worked on a documentary funded by SMYF.
• https://citypsalm.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/nowhere-to-run-wins-best-documentary-short-at-the-african-film-festival-taff-dallas-and-screens-6-more-times-this-week-in-abuja-dc-and-linden-nj/ is a non-sequitur, and we couldn't cite it in the first place as it's a random blog (no editorial oversight).
• https://carmenmccain.com/2016/07/04/nowhere-to-run-wins-best-documentary-short-at-the-african-film-festival-taff-dallas-and-screens-6-more-times-this-week-in-abuja-dc-and-linden-nj/ is a non-sequitur, but given it's talking about the same film as the first Carmen McCain source, it's useless for notability even if it weren't (connexion to subject).
• https://www.ekoiff.org/official-selection-2016-eko-international-film-festival/ is a non-sequitur. Everything here about Nowhere to Run does nothing for the article about SMYF, as they're barely even mentioned, if at all, in those sources.
• https://www.bebeakinboade.com/2016/11/afriff-globe-awards-2016-full-list-of.html is a non-sequitur.
• https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/movies/homevida-awards-2016-oloibiri-nowhere-to-run-win-big-at-7th-edition/92j2p9m " " "-".
• https://dailytrust.com/oloibiri-nowhere-to-run-bag-2016-homevida-awards/ " " "-".

None of the sources you have that I could assess are usable in any way. Please read WP:Reliable sources and WP:Notability (companies and organizations) and look for better sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: Thank you for the very detailed feedback. I will work on the sources as advised. Zeeyas (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeyas You said "our" above. Are you associated with this Foundation? 331dot (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Yes, I am. Zeeyas (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeyas Then please read conflict of interest; you will need to make a formal disclosure. 331dot (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thank you. I believe I did that before submitting the draft. Zeeyas (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeyas I don't see in your edit history where you disclosed. If you checked a box when you used the article wizard, that is not a disclosure, it's just a way of guiding you. No one knows you checked that box other than you. You need to disclose as WP:COI describes. If you find the coding too challenging, you may just write a statement on your user page to the effect of "I wish to disclose a conflict of interest with regards to the Shehu Musa Yar'Adua Foundation". 331dot (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shark4124 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Said Gul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I cannot submit it,because it says "ratelimited" what i gotta do? Shark4124 (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shark4124 I fixed your post to provide the correct link to your draft. I'm not sure about your issue, but your draft would not be accepted if you submitted it, as it has no independent reliable sources summarized. Wikipedia articles cannot be used to source other Wikipedia articles, per WP:CIRCULAR. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source are hard to find,sorry. Because it really rare. Shark4124 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shark4124 Sources are a must; you should have them in hand before starting to write a draft. Sources do not need to be online, a book in a library is fine.

If sources are hard to find, how do you know about this man? 331dot (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got in from the youtube actually (sorry if i say "youtube") ill change it bro. Because it a bit confusing,sorry! Shark4124 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro,appreciate that for the suggestions, i able to submit it Shark4124 (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Revbunmi (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:OLUBUNMI ADELEYE THOMAS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I know very well of the subject matter; Olubunmi Adeleye Thomas, he is an unpublished personality very few is online about him and the Oyo State Government official website has information about him at www.bunmithomas.org.ng and knowing him to be an human right activist and clergy in Ibadan the most populous city in Nigeria, he ought to be on wikipedia. please i recommend that you call for articles concerning him. thank you. Revbunmi (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revbunmi If there are few sources about this man, he would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. We do not place phone calls here searching for sources, it's up to you to provide them. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fanindradev (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fanindra Bhardwaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m trying to add a biography page of Fanindra bhardwaj he is music producer and songwriter please help me to add a title for fanindra bhardwaj and please suggest me which reference needed in submission [[ user:fanindradev]] (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find several places where people wholly unconnected with Bhardwaj, and not prompted or fed information by or on behalf of Bhardwaj, have chosen to write at lenght about him, and been published in reliable sources. That is the only kind of source which is relevant at this stage.

If you do not have at least three sources which meet that description (see WP:42 for more detail then you are wasting your time and our time. ColinFine (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2A01:9700:1021:B00:CEDB:B79C:29BF:D4BD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Abdullah Khawaja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

whywas it rejected 2A01:9700:1021:B00:CEDB:B79C:29BF:D4BD (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the reasons for rejecting it, but the reason given for deleting it was that iswasunambiguous advertising or promotion.

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.

Writing an article starts by finding several independent reliable sources about the subject, and then continues by summarising what those sources say. It follows that if there are not enough such sources, and article is not possible, and any attempt to write one is a complete waste of time. ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arismauve (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:I Forgive You (Sia song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I posted News that y'all want, and in news they said "single" as I Forgive You. But Why declined? I really can't understand Arismauve (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arismauve: One source by itself, no matter how good it is, cannot support a Wikipedia article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Biospeleologist (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mandhip Khol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please Suggest how to modify for publishing my article Mandhip Khol in wikipedia. Biospeleologist (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Цымбалов Данил (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:"Гипотеза Цымбалова". (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

В чем проблема? Цымбалов Данил (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Цымбалов Данил: This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have zero use for content that is not in English. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[Automated translation - ru] Это англоязычная Википедия. Мы не можем использовать контент, написанный не на английском языке. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jamesmfinnegan (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:There will never be enough darkeness and evil in this whole world that will or can ever dim the light from one single candle of hope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why is this not acceptable? Jamesmfinnegan (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was deleted as a test page, as it had no content. 331dot (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the deleted drafts, but judging from the messages on your user talk page, you need to read what Wikipedia is not carefully. ColinFine (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I hope this message finds you well. We have submitted our request some times and it just got rejected. As you know, we have a product with a long history but the last release date was 2 weeks ago. There are lots of pages in this field that have the same content and the same sources and they got approved but it's strange about our page that just rejected. We used as many sources and references as we can and we expect to get approved. Please help us in this regard Caeid (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeid: "We"? This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and odds are the other articles you're looking at were never drafted. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 18:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a place to tell the world about your company or your products: that is called promotion and is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia.

If several people wholly unconnected with you and your associates, and not fed information by or on behalf of you (eg interviews, press releases) have chosen to write about your company at length, and been published in reliable sources, then there could be an article about your company. It would be based almost 100% on what those sources had said about you - good and bad - and not on what you or your associates say or want to say.

You are strongly discouraged from trying to write such an article, because it will be even harder for you because of your conflict of interest than it otherwise would. If you choose to do so anyway, then having found your indepedent sources, you would have to do the difficult step of forgetting everything you know about the company, and writing a neutral summary of what those sources said - even if you disagreed with some of what they said. Do you see why this is discouraged?

As for those other articles: please see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadikul Masduq (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Salman Habib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have updated my article you can check now. Sadikul Masduq (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadikul Masduq: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 15:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Beatrix leo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bahria Town Listings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my article is showing me that this submission is declined? Beatrix leo (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was thoroughly promotional and has been deleted. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• עומר תשבי (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shalom Meckenzie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined due to so called "lack of sources". However, there are many sources on the article. Furthermore, Meckenzie is a leading shareholder in a huge company, with significant coverage in all main financial websites Both in Israel and The US עומר תשבי (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone looking at this draft: Subject falls into a community-authorised contentious topic (Web3). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alexbarg (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Michael Bargeron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My submission was declined because of not providing reliable sources for the information, however the sources of information were from the official British Shooting website and from a BBC news article solely about the person who the Wikipedia page was about. The initial reason for the Wikipedia page to be created was because there was a separate page which referenced the individual in question with a hyperlink which said there was no existing page for the individual. Please can you advise? Alexbarg (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NATH for the criteria they need to pass. Theroadislong (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 37.252.90.42 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Muthumudalige Nissanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello There, I have just translated Wikipedia article written in Sinhala, Sri Lanka language. Unfortunately Wikipedia rejected it , I am new to Wikipedia and trying to do something better to social, specially as a translator I am trying to translate a Wikipedia articles which is written in Sinhala to English for free, Please kindly help me to improve the knowledge and find what is the wrong with my translating's. Here is the link to original article > https://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AD%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%B8%E0%B7%94%E0%B6%AF%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%92%E0%B6%9C%E0%B7%9A_%E0%B6%B1%E0%B7%92%E0%B7%81%E0%B7%8A%E0%B7%81%E0%B6%82%E0%B6%9A 37.252.90.42 (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't seem to mention Muthumudalige Nissanka? Theroadislong (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Varshu018 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Jhanak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article is not being accepted since a long time Varshu018 (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done anything about the reviewers comment "The Times of India cannot be used to source entertainment articles - please find more reliable sources" Theroadislong (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MartinJeremy78 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Diana Elizabeth Martinovich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why my article was declined. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinJeremy78: it was declined for lack of evidence of notability, as explained in the decline notice. We need to see multiple sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, and your draft cites none. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with you about it. I have provided you several sources that confirm my articcle and data about Mrs. Diana Elizabeth Martinovich. It seems to me you have something personal against Diana Elizabeth Martinovichm,because there are persons with much less accomplishments and with much less notability that are published on Wikipedia. MartinJeremy78 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Topg1985 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:William John Titus Bishop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An Editor, HouseBlaster, is repeatedly commenting on and editing my draft. It feels like disruptive editing and a personal issue. There seems to be a query about notability, but I am sure the topic is notable.

All my Love,

Topg1985 Topg1985 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has now been rejected. 331dot (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: I have nothing against you or Bishop. However, I have significant doubts about whether Bishop is notable. I have created a source assessment table of the sources currently in the article, and I previously assessed four others in response to a question at my talk page. An article on this subject has been deleted after a deletion discussion, and has been deleted at various titles over the years (including William Bishop (Author, Musician), William Bishop (Musician, Author), Draft:William Bishop, and William Bishop (singer); this list is from the deletion discussion). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear HouseBlaster and 331dot,

Thank you for your comments. The subjects notability has nothing to do with previous attempts to create the article. I understand your concern but I am convinced he is notable.

All my Love,

TooG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: with respect, it doesn't matter whether you're convinced he's notable; it only matters whether you can objectively demonstrate his notability through sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DoubleGrazing,

I hope you are well and thank you for your message. That is affirmative, I can objectively demonstrate notability through sources.

All my Love, TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: I have deleted your latest additions to this page. Please do not start a new thread, just add to this existing one. And certainly don't add two new threads that are identical. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Which of my additions are you referring to?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know your own edits?! A moment ago you opened two new threads on the bottom of this page, saying:

"The editor HouseBlaster, has stated he has a personal issue with me and my editing. He keeps commenting on and trying interfere with my draft."

Quite apart from everything else, that's not even a question. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

My apologies, I did not notice that it had been deleted. My page had not updated. I feel it is worth noting that the editor in question has commented that if I re-submit the draft he will force a deletion discussion.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: nothing wrong with that. You should not resubmit a draft that has been rejected; that's what rejection means. And if you do (resubmit), that is just saying that a deletion process will consequently be instigated.

BTW, do you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject? Your user page says you're a paid editor, but it's not clear whether and how that relates to the subject of this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

The editor in question has stated that he does not think I am taking him seriousely. This is a personal issue and nothing to do with me or my draft or Wikipedia. I have been editing the Encyclopedia for a while now and never had a problem like this. It makes me feel bad. The subject of the draft is a musician, and I have been requested by an artist management to write a draft about him. So there is no COI.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: could you please be a little less vague – what is this "artist management" you speak of? What is their relationship to Bishop? And what is their relationship to you, and how come they made such a request? So far it's sounding very much like there probably is a COI, we just need to establish its precise nature.

As for any personal issues between two editors, this isn't something I'm prepared to get involved in, and it also isn't something we can assist with here at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

Hi I have already declared COI on my user page. I work for his management team. I do not know the artist, or why they made the request.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: yes, I know you had disclosed some paid editing on your user page; my question was whether it relates to Bishop. (I say "had", because for some mysterious reason you've now removed that disclosure.)

And as if that's not enough, you say on one hand that "there is no COI", and on the other that you work for Bishop's (?) management team.

What's going on here? If we can't straighten out this matter ourselves, I'll need to ask an admin to intervene. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topg1985 certainly has a COI.

Topg1985, you are not taking me seriously. I have told you that the answer is no. You are sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring my advice.

You have not provided any reliable sources which contain significant coverage and are independent of Bishop. Do you have any? That is the whole ballgame. If you have multiple, Bishop is notable. If not, he is not. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,

I hope HouseBlaster that you are feeling a little less bad about yourself and have a better feeling of self-worth. I am not sticking my fingers anywhere or ignoring anyone. I have taken onboard what HouseBlaster has said. I have certainly provided such sources, and I can find more if necessary. In HouseBlaster’s analysis he rejects reference 1, but it is listed as reliable on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources for music, and is independant and significant.

There is enough information on Bishop to write an article, and the sources are reliable and independant. When I started writing the page I placed the correct COI template on my userpage, and this was noted. The template stated that I worked for Bishop’s management. I thought it could be removed at anytime. There is no problem there. What exactly is the issue?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: this feels like trying to nail jelly to a wall...

The paid-editing COI disclosure on your user page read as follows:

{{paid|user=Topg1985|employer=Sentric Music|client=Sentric Music}}

Where in that does it say anything about Bishop? And/or where in the Bishop draft does it say anything about Sentric Music? The connection may be perfectly obvious to you, given that you work for them, but it isn't to me, hence my question.

And no, you emphatically may not remove disclosures.

Therefore, the "issue" is that you appear to be a paid editor, without a valid and unambiguous paid-editing disclosure in place. That, and your ongoing badgering of this matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing and HouseBlaster,

I will re-add the template immediately. My concern is that now is that if I edit the draft and re-submit it, then it will automatically be in a deletion discussion, which should not be the case if the subject is notable.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Topg1985: your disclosure still makes no reference to Bishop.

And you can keep saying as many times as you like that Bishop is notable; that does not make him so, we need actual evidence.

I think I'll have to give up as this is clearly going nowhere. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is truly notable, the deletion discussion will end with consensus that the subject is notable and it would not be deleted.

Source 1 is the closest we have to a significant coverage in a reliable source, but I am very skeptical that it is truly independent of Bishop. It is almost a verbatim copy from source 2, which according that website's its "about us" section is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent. Therefore, source 1 is either committing plagiarism (which puts its reliability in doubt) or it is copying with permission, in which case the source is not independent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster and DoubleGrazing,

I will mention Bishop specifically in the disclosure.

HouseBlaster, source 1 is listed as reliable by Wikipedia. It is independant of Bishop because it does not follow that just because two text share the same information that the same people are involved in their creation. Your skepticism is bordering on bad faith, but I am glad to see you are feeling less insecure!

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HouseBlaster,

In addition source 4 contains significant coverage under the ‘more about’ section. You’ve said the source is reliable and independant already.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 2 don't only share the same information, they share the same wording of the information. Here is a side-by-side comparison of the two sources (source 1 is in yellow; source 2 is in blue). Paragraph 1 of source 1:

−

Having a background in literature and poetry, music became second nature. William John Bishop is classically trained as a cellist and double bassist, learning acoustic guitar as a teenager. Influences include Laura Marling, Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan. William writes on guitar and piano.

+

Having a background in literature and poetry, music became second nature to Will Bishop, despite being a reserved individual, he has gone against the odds performing regularly at music venues writing music, a far cry from his upbringing. William John Bishop is classically trained as a cellist and double bassist, learning acoustic guitar as a teenager. Influences include Laura Marling, Leonard Cohen and Bob Dylan. William writes on guitar and piano.

Paragraph 2 of source 1 appears identically in source 2 (Now signed to Sony Music's The Orchard, William was born in London, attending the Haberdashers Askes' School for Boys where he learned cello and double bass, performing predominantly orchestral works. In London he learned to play guitar wanting to write his own songs and music.). Here is paragraph 3 of source 1 compared to source 2:

−

William moved to Brighton, where his academic text The Love Looks Not With The Eyes But With The Mind was published. He then recorded his first EP, Second Time Around, given critical acclaim by music journalist Bob Leggitt.

+

William moved to Brighton, where his academic text 'The love looks not wit the eyes but with the mind' was published. He then recorded his first EP, Second Time Around, given critical acclaim by music journalist Bob Leggitt.

Either source 1 is committing plagiarism and thus is unreliable (because any editorial standards would forbid plagiarism), or source 1 is copying with permission from source 2 and thus is not independent. (And source 2 was not copying from source 1; source 2 has existed since 2021 and source 1 is dated from 2024.)

I missed the "more about" section; thank you for drawing my attention to it. When I first reviewed the source, I evidently missed a few things. Doing a more thorough review of the source, I have doubts about its reliability (it is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources or the list of perennial sources, and I cannot find any discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard). Even if we assume the source is reliable, that is a single source: we need multiple for notability. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

I still think that if Wikipedia states the source is reliable then it must be reliable, but great analysis.

I have added two further sources which should have enough independant, reliable information for you and I will add more when I find them.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Wikipedia say source 4 is a reliable source?

I have reviewed the two additional sources you added. qrates contains the same biography from sources 1 and 2, and thus is not independent. ReverbNation might be a reliable source; I don't know. However, it does not appear to be independent: It contains a line talking about Bishop in the first person (I had always wanted to go into music as a career without realising it). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

I meant to say that Wikipedia lists source 1 as reliable. The sentence you refer to from Reverbnation looks like a typo.

I still have a few more I can add.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I buy that it is a typo; I can't say I have ever heard of someone writing from the first person by mistake. However, I know of plenty of times people are told to write about themselves in the third person (to name just two, biographies for company websites and theater playbill blurbs). The source also sounds like something written by (or at least in collaboration with) Bishop; an independent writer would not know details like [Bishop] didn’t think anything of it at the time.

When Wikipedia says a source is "reliable", we mean "usually reliable". In all cases, the context matters. In fact, a direct quote from the guideline is The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Even though the source might be generally reliable, we can't blindly say it is reliable in all circumstance. If it is copying from a different source, it would inherit the reliability and independence of the original source. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

With regards to your first paragraph, independant writers do sometimes use ‘poetic licence’ when writing about artists.They may just be imagining that is what Bishop was thinking at the time to embellish the article.

With regards to the second paragraph, thank you for the information. In this case I assume the original source is reliable and independant as I can find no direct links to Bishop.

All my Love,

Top G1985 Topg1985 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source is taking creative liberties and not reporting factually, it is reporting speculation as fact, which makes it unreliable. Either way, the article does not contribute to notability.

As for source two, as I said above:

according [source 2's about section, it] is a place with a diverse blend of conferences, expos, showcases, networking events, and more. They would not host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinaimx.com. Therefore, source 2 is not independent.

Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HouseBlaster,

Taking creative liberties is, I agree, not a report of a fact. Still, that is exactly what journalists do. I don’t think they are reporting speculation as fact, it’s pretty clear it’s just the journalist speculating.

As for chinamix.com, I can find no link to Bishop directly. I don’t wish to argue but how can you be sure ‘they don’t host biographies of people who have not engaged with chinamix.com’? You can’t really say much about the organisation from just a website.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think an independent, reliable source with significant coverage about Bishop would look like?

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the time has come to draw a line under this and stop flogging a dead horse. The draft has been rejected, and IMO correctly so. No convincing evidence of notability has been produced, only unsubstantiated claims by a paid editor (whose COI took far too much effort to establish, I might add). The whole thing is becoming tendentious and this thread is looking more and more like bludgeoning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

On the contrary, and with all due respect, I am trying very hard to establish what is meant by a reliable, independant and significant source. So that I may edit Wikipedia in the best way possible. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with paid editing, and I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time without being a paid editor. I can produce a very long list of articles about musicians which use sources which I have been told are unsuitable, but I don’t flirt with controversy or use blunt weaponry.

All my Love,

TopG1985 Topg1985 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See other crap articles exist for that argument, there is zero evidence that the artist passes WP:GNG or WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Theroadislong,

I hope you are well. Please stop trolling me and my edits it’s disruptive at best.

All my Love,

TopG1985. Topg1985 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:William John Titus Bishop. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've blocked Topg1985 indefinitely for any number of reasons apparent in this thread, but DE was simplest. Star Mississippi 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am unclear which of the types of sources I am missing, or which you would like more of. I've linked to several outside sources that discuss PolyAI and its products/work, not just internal websites or press releases. I would be happy to provide more information, but I need to know what to provide. BretDvr (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BretDvr Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). Once those are left out, the draft just tells of the routine activities of the company, which does not establish notability. We need sources with significant coverage of your company- coverage that goes into detail about what the sources see as important/significant/influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let me see what I can get. BretDvr (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Monelle (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sonia Malkine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me what "copyrighted information" was included in the article I submitted? I seem to remember being told that the wording was the same as that on Sonia Malkine's website. That website was owned and written by me (Sonia Malkine was my mother). It has since been taken down as a result of having been hacked. Is there any possibility that my article could now be included in Wikipedia? Thank you for your attention. Monelle (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC) Monelle (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Monelle A publication must be CC BY-SA compliant in order for its contents to be copied here and even then the content may not be suitable for use in a Wikipedia article per WP:NOT (more specifically WP:NOTPROMO) and the Neutral point of view policy. S0091 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It follows that writing an article starts by looking for such independent sources, and if they cannot be found, there is no point in going any further. It is unlikely that very much on your mother's website will be relevant to a Wikipedia article ColinFine (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jadooee (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jill Viles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I received this message," 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.".

I just edited the draft, but I do not want to resubmit and risk it getting deleted if the issues are still present. Is there a way I can ask for it to be reviewed without penalty? Jadooee (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't do pre-review reviews here. The best way to get feedback is to submit it. As long as you are making progress and there is a chance the issues can be resolved, you shouldn't have an issue. I will say that the draft is loaded with promotional language("stands as a remarkable figure who has astounded many scientists and health professionals"; "she achieved the extraordinary feat", etc). An article should be written as dry and matter of fact as possible, without embellishments. Much of the draft is unsourced; every substantive piece of information about a living person needs a source, see WP:BLP.

Are you associated with this person? 331dot (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Amitunbind (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Saral Home (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Can you please suggest me what should i remove from my article? Amitunbind (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitunbind: I've requested for the lot of it to be removed. Please do not try to use Wikipedia for advertising. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ephrem-IRB (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Independent Regulatory Board (IRB) of the Eastern Africa Power Pool (EAPP) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Because the article I submitted was not accepted. I would like some one to review the article I submitted. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephrem-IRB: your draft (not yet article) has been reviewed, and declined. We're not interested in what the organisation has to say about itself. We want to know what other, entirely unconnected sources have said about it.

Also, you need to disclose your status as a paid editor. I've posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I don't want to be paid anything. I just wanted to give information about a regional organization in the Eastern Africa. Kindly advise. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ephrem-IRB: I'm saying you are being paid, because of your employment at this organisation, and our terms & conditions of use require you to formally disclose this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct I am an employee of the organization that I wanted to give information. Where can I disclose that please. Thank you. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been provided with instructions on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get it clearly. Where can I correct those things? Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "did not get it clearly". Can you not find the message on your talk page, or do you not understand it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Write a statement on your user page, User:Ephrem-IRB, in which you say something to the effect of "Per the Terms of Use, I declare that I am an employee of the Independent Regulatory Board of the Eastern Africa Power Pool". 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article is rejected. Ephrem-IRB (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create a new section for new posts, please use this existing section. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephrem-IRB You seem to have a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia and what we do here. Wikipedia is not a place for an organization to tell the world about itself and what it does. An article about an organization must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely telling of the activities of the organization or basic informaton(like staff) and goes into detail about what the sources sees as important/significant/influential about the topic- what makes it notable. Press releases, brief mentions, announcements of routine activities, staff interviews, and the like do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, it's even harder with a conflict of interest. You must set aside everything you know about your organization and all materials it puts out, and only write based on the content of independent sources. Most people in your position have great difficulty doing that. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 136.233.52.242 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Sielmat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was notified that "I can now create articles myself without posting a request". I have created and moved this page Sielmat. Yet I am not sure if it is the same as publishing an article for creation since I cannot find this article in Google Search. Do inform me in this regard.

136.233.52.242 (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New articles won't be indexed by search engines until they have been approved by new page patrol, or until 90 days have passed, whichever comes sooner. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any such way to submit a "request for approval" to this new page patrol? Thanks. Puia 98 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Puia 98: new pages get added automatically into the pool for reviewing, there is nothing you need to (or indeed can) do to request this. There is currently a large backlog of over 14,000 articles awaiting review, so this could take a while. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A smart kitten (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Who Nose? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across this draft from the talk page of the IP editor that submitted it. It was declined by Dan arndt as failing WP:DISAMBIG; however, it seems to be a valid disambiguation page from what I can see, and the entries seem to meet MOS:DABENTRY. Posting here to request a second set of eyes. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the article doesn’t disambiguate to any other Wikipedia articles, just to a series of unrelated things. Dan arndt (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pep.maps2020 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Pep Figueiredo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request your assistance in approval of this profile page. Pep.maps2020 (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page that has no meaning and literally resembles a fan page. As per @CanonNi:, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or promotional website. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• MarGiann (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Polycentric Approach to the Management of Urban Waters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I am trying to publish the article "Polycentric Approach to the Management of Urban Waters . However it does not seem to work. Could you please help me further with that? Thanks a lot in advance. MarGiann (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarGiann: this draft was declined for being non-encyclopaedic, both in structure and content. As such, it would require a fairly comprehensive rewrite.

Also worth noting that it was declined nearly six months ago, and is very soon eligible for speedy deletion as an abandoned draft. So if you do plan to continue editing it, you should do so sooner rather than later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the fast response. I have considerably edited the document and I wanted to resubmit. However, I get to receive this message.

"No stashed content found for 1181823001/bad43be9-91aa-11ee-b2d6-4cd98fa9ea25"

I think it is a technincal issue but I am not sure what exactly is the problem. MarGiann (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarGiann: yes, it is a technical issue, and as such outside the scope of this help desk, but AFAIK it has to do with the browser losing the local stash (temporary content store) where the edits you make reside until they are committed by publishing the draft. This happens if the browser is left open for a long time or something goes wrong with your system. Some browsers apparently are better at recovering such data, but you getting that error message suggests it may be lost for good. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Arinc9 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sir Sam Walker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft that I have submitted is not an attempt to be humorous, nor is it a hoax. We have collectively decided on RIPE NCC's SEE 12 event that creating this page would be helpful in addressing the misinformation for anyone accessing the internet. At least Vesna Manojlovic from RIPE NCC, Daniele Bovio from the European Academic & Research Network (EARN), and François Flückiger from CERN have endorsed this action.

I am submitting this while at the Divani Caravel Hotel. You can prove that by running whois on the IP address that I use to submit this. The SEE 12 event is being hosted in this hotel. Arinc9 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of your sources mention him? Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting my reply here as well:

No, all of the sources documented here mention this person. You can refer to World Wide Web to confirm that this Sir Sam Walker person does not exist in the context of the creating of the World Wide Web. Arinc9 (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arinc9: so you're submitting a draft with four sources each saying Walker is one of the creators of WWW, to prove that isn't the case? So far the evidence only seems to show that is the case!

Besides, four passing mentions (which is what they are) would not make him notable enough to justify an article.

If you want to create an article on (what I think is) your intended topic, you would need to first show that there are numerous sources incorrectly claiming something (which is what you've done, sort of), then cite reliable evidence refuting this, and then show that this misinformation (disinformation?) is being widely enough discussed in multiple secondary sources that are independent and reliable to warrant an encyclopaedia article on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be trying RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, which is not what Wikipedia is for.

If you can find several sources discussing whether Walker exists or not, then there may be an article possible. But if you can find only mentions of him then he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and there cannot be an article about him. (Note that this is quite independent of whether he exists or not: Wikipedia has articles on many notable but non-existent subjects, such as unicorns, N-rays and the luminiferous aether.)

Furthermore, even if he is notable, then your assertion that he does not exist appears to be original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. ColinFine (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rincemermaid (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fidos Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How do I write these sentences in a neutral tone: The For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, or FIDOS, is a UK film awards event created by Toby Rose. It celebrates performances by dogs as well as recognize canine talents in films. It's the sister award to the Palm Dog awards, which was also created by Toby Rose in 2001 and held at the Cannes Film Festival in Cannes, France. Both events were inspired by Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt. Founded by cinema journalist Toby Rose in 2007, the first annual Fidos Awards presentation was held as a part of The Times London Film Festival at the BFI on the South Bank on October 28, 2007. The event is now held in March. Rincemermaid (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rincemermaid: words like "celebrates", "inspired", and to a slightly lesser extent "talents" are quite peacocky or marketing blurb-y. Replace them with the most boring, dry synonyms you can think of. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit for the first sentence: The FIDOS, or For Incredible Dogs On Screen Awards, is a film awards ceremony in the UK founded by Toby Rose. It honors dogs' performances and acknowledges their skills in movies. The Palm Dog awards, a related event created by Rose in 2001, takes place at the Cannes Film Festival in France and is considered the sister award to the FIDOS. These awards were created in honor of Rose's late Fox Terrier, Mutt.   Rincemermaid (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NMDP (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Erik Della Penna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello--I have made changes that the previous reviewer suggested, but I also want to leave a message for the next prospective reviewer showing how the subject of this article meets the requirements of notability of composers and lyricists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) This subject meets criteria #1 and #2, but I think the reviewers have been missing this. Where would I leave such a comment after I resubmit the article? Thanks! NMDP (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NMDP: you can leave comments on the draft talk page; I will add a note highlighting this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks VM. NMDP (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. NMDP (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NMDP: Given you have 53 sources it may very well be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat. Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• We don't cite Discogs (no editorial oversight). Discogs, like Wikipedia, is entirely user-generated content.
• https://www.berkshireeagle.com/arts_and_culture/berkshirelandscapes/spencertown-academy-roots-and-shoots-concert-rachelle-garniez-erik-della-penna/article_04f0a51c-d7d7-11ed-841d-27eb9e4fbcd3.html seems okay.
• I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/theater/dead-outlaw-audible.html (walled). https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/10/theater/dead-outlaw-review.html likewise is walled to me.
• https://www.aol.com/musical-dead-outlaw-oklahoma-robber-142236491.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Barely discusses Della Penna, being mainly about the stageplay.
• https://playbill.com/article/wet-brain-leads-2024-lucille-lortel-award-nominations-read-the-complete-list is useless for notability (too sparse). Merely being nominated for an award confers no special boon to notability; they have to win it.
• https://www.theatermania.com/news/2024-drama-league-award-nominations-announced_1737887/ is a non-sequitur and even if it weren't it has the exact same issues as the Playbill source.
• https://americansongwriter.com/the-antique-garde-songwriters-of-new-york-city/ looks good.
• https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/holy-roller-joan-osborne-47920/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Della Penna.
• We don't cite IMDb (no editorial oversight). Wiki.
• We can't use any of the Allmusic sources you cite (too sparse). From our perennial sources page: Listings without accompanying prose do not count towards notability, and as a rule content-free profiles have no information to cite regardless of where they are published.
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/07/04/kill-henry-sugar-sell-this/daac1261-a4d4-4c6e-8d30-d0731f408b77/ is borderline. While it does discuss his work in Kill Henry Sugar, it's a very short article overall.
• https://www.westword.com/arts/circus-saga-5075035 is useless for notability (no editorial oversight). The biggest problem with citing news stories (or, really, anything else) about an event that predate the event is the possibility that the events they're discussing won't happen due to whatever reason: a plane crashed, venue didn't remove brown M&Ms, performer committed pater familicide, etc.
• We can't use Surprise Truck (too sparse. Very short article with barely anything to cite. I should also note that unless the source discusses Della Penna specifically articles which are more about Kill Henry Sugar are not going to be particularly helpful as a source for an article on Della Penna.
• https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/joan-baez-returns-to-her-acoustic-roots-in-new-2558789.php is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in an interview with a collaborator.
• https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/joan-baez-barbican-london-6106875.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Della Penna.
• https://www.evesun.com/news/stories/2023-02-20/37930/Hazmat-Modine-on-the-EOH-Main-Stage is a non-sequitur, and even if it weren't we couldn't cite it as it's an obvious advertorial (no editorial oversight).
• https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/arts/music/migrations-the-making-of-america-immigration.html is 404-compliant. (It gives me a blank page.)
• https://www.broadwayworld.com/miami/article/KITTY-HAWK-Returns-to-the-Arsht-Center-for-Its-Third-Season-20191014 is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Della Penna.
• https://www.broadway.com/buzz/203921/dead-outlaw-world-premiere-musical-from-the-bands-visit-team-extends-run/ " " " " (" "). "-", " " " " ".

You have two okay sources, and the rest of the ones I can assess are a combination of name-drops, Discogs, and Allmusic content-free album profiles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jéské Couriano. Thank you for your time on this and your comments. My thought is that Della Penna seems to qualify as a notable composer/lyricist under Wikipedia's own criteria:

• WP:COMPOSER

For the WikiProject, see Wikipedia:Composers.

Composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists, may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.
2. Has written musical theatre of some sort (e.g., musicals, operas) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run, as such things are judged in their particular situation, context, and time.
3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria.
4. Has written a composition that has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.
5. Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter, or lyricist that meets the above criteria.
6. Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music.

Wikipedia:Notability (music)

He has written the music and lyrics to a musical that was performed in the famed off-Broadway theater--The Minetta Lane Theater. It ran for seven weeks and now is being nominated for awards (the winners have not been chosen yet).

Should I just make it a short article about him being a composer/lyricist and take out all the other information about him being a guitarist/songwriter? NMDP (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NMDP: Remember when I said above that it may be a case of the chaff choking out the wheat? Two sources out of 51 being good (discounting the two walled NYT sources) is a problem for any draft, since it means that reviewers aren't going to bother approving the article as the sourcing is still very noticeably subpar. All the extraneous sources other than the Berkshire Eagle, American Songwriter, and (potentially) the two walled New York Times sources need to be removed, and the draft rewritten based on the sources that remain. Bear in mind WP:BLP applies here as well, which makes the useless sources even more of a liability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll give that a shot. Thank you. NMDP (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely thinking about references differently. I was thinking that references had to "prove" each fact in the article. So for example the SFGate article and the Independent article "prove" Della Penna played in Joan Baez's band, but you're saying it's just name-dropping--that wikipedia requires more. Again--thanks. NMDP (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely thinking about references differently. I was thinking that references had to "prove" each fact in the article. So for example the SFGate article and the Independent article "prove" Della Penna played in Joan Baez's band, but you're saying it's just name-dropping--that wikipedia requires more. Will work on it. NMDP (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC NMDP (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm wondering if I can get more specifics on how to address the suggestion of making this more "encyclopedic" rather than an "essay" and also specific points where I should revise from having an opinion to being neutral? Thank you for the guidance. 2610:130:110:1523:7D8B:A2E8:738A:34C (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty finding any of your sources which actually meet the triple criterion in WP:42. All of them I've looked at are either published by the subject, or mention them without saying very much about them. The last couple don't even mention it.

This means, it seems to me, that your draft does not yet establish that the Union meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.

Furthermore, if there are no independent sources which say anything substantial about the Union, then there is nothing that can go in the article - which is probably why it reads as an essay.

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) 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 108.6.176.12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Effects of Hurricane Ian in Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft was declined for being mostly a copy paste of Hurricane Ian, but a discussion at Talk:Hurricane Ian determined a consensus for a split and trimming down of the main section. The draft should be accepted because it reflects consensus. 108.6.176.12 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article splits are not usually done via this process; see WP:PROSPLIT for the procedure. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reviewer simply wasn't aware of that split discussion (an easy thing to overlook, if you ask me). Courtesy pinging Shadow311. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaw54 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Gaw54/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

PLEASE HELP!!!! I have made multiple edits to this page and published them. Then someone seems to reject my article and now all my edits have disappeared. I am beyond frustrated. Gaw54 (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: your draft has only been declined, not rejected, and that does not make edits "disappear" (as you can see yourself from the edit history). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But my edits DID disappear. I made a number of new edits yesterday and today, published them, and then when I went back to look at the document, they were gone. Moreover, one of the objections to the article was that I needed to use footnotes. There are 23 footnotes in this article! I simply don't understand the basis for the article being declined. This was written to respond to the call of the Women Artists Project to fill the gap between the presence of male and female artists on Wikipedia. With this kind of experience, I can understand why. I've spent over a week on this entry and I still don't understand why it is being declined or how I can it before a reviewer who might actually know something about the subject and provide more useful feedback. Gaw54 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: I'm not saying your edits didn't disappear. Maybe your browser crashed. Maybe your computer (or whatever device you're editing on) did. Maybe you didn't publish your edits. All I'm saying is, declining (or rejecting, for that matter) a draft does not cause anything to vanish. Not that I'm aware of, at any rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54 As explained below, you are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Please only edit one of them to avoid confusion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Explorer Hamza (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shakeba Umar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

not able to understand rejection , please guide how to submit Explorer Hamza (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explorer Hamza: articles on living people (WP:BLP) need to be referenced with inline citations, so that it's clear where each bit of the content is coming from; see WP:REFB and WP:ILC for advice. (I don't think that's the only issue with this draft, but it's the one it was declined for.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Explorer Hamza: As to your sources proper, refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:

• We can't use https://www.wef.org.in/shakeba-umar/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this?
• We don't cite LinkedIn (connexion to subject). LinkedIn profiles are written by or on behalf of the LinkedIn account holder.
• I cannot assess either PDF (incompetent).
• Literally every Denzal Foundation and Shakebaumar.com source is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
• We can't use https://ngodetails.com/india/orissa/denzal-foundation/ (too sparse). Content-free profile.
• https://www.hindustanbytes.com/in2futurecom-honored-educationalists-educational-organization-at-international-innovative-education-summit-iies-on-27th-march-2022-at-oaks-ibn-battuta-gate-dubai is useless for notability (too sparse). Name in a massive list of awardees for a non-exclusive award. Non-exclusive awards as a rule tend to mean nothing for notability.
• https://www.hindustanmetro.com/in2future-com-honored-educationalists-educational-organization-at-international-innovative-education-summit-iies-on-27th-march-2022-at-oaks-ibn-battuta-gate-dubai/ was discussed and dismissed; it's a carbon copy of the HindustanBytes source.
• https://spotlatest.com/uncategorized/foxclues-india-top-100-women-icon-awards-third-list-announced/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name in a list for a non-exclusive award.

The overwhelming majority of your sources are unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 21:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Max Elliott1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Karry G (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mayday friends, could you help me understand why my page was not approved? I have not much experience in creating pages, and maybe I really missed something. Please help. Thanks, gracias, danke, merci, shukran, дякую Max Elliott1 (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Max Elliott1: it was declined because it is unreferenced. (A quick glance suggests there are other issues, too, but that's why it was declined this time around.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also fails the criteria at WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Max. I'm afraid that that is the usual experience for people who attempt to create an article before they have spent the time learning how Wikipedia works. I always advise new editors to spend a few months making improvements to existing articles, and gradually learning about core principles like verifiability, reliale sources, neutral point of view and notability, before ever trying the challenging task of creating a new article. ColinFine (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gaw54 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Add WikiProject tags (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've done that. I think the process may have been interrupted by someone reviewing and responding the draft before I publish the changes. I just tried again and hope that this works. On a related note, I tried entering tags but got the message that no page existed by the title of my article. Suggestions? Gaw54 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are editing two versions of the draft, one here User:Gaw54/sandbox and another here Draft:Bonnie Rychlak. Theroadislong (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent considerable time on my entry on artist and curator Bonnie Rychlak. I am very confused about the basis of it being declined. I was told that my inline citations were not correctly but that I should footnotes. I'm very confused. There are 25 footnotes on the cite. Also, I tried without success to tag the page Women Artists and Women Writers in order that it get to editors in best position to provide valuable feedback. But when I attempted to tag the page, I received the notice that no such page with the title Bonnie Rychlak exists. Please advise. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've consolidated these sections. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that makes sense. Can you please clarify why one reviewer believes this individual doesn't meet the notability standard? She has a highly respected career in TWO fields both as artist and curator. She is one of the top experts on the artist Noguchi with over a dozen key publications and multiple international exhibitions. Moreover, she has co-exhibited with another artist who has a Wiki page, and was written about by a top critic/curator who also has a Wiki page. I'm trying to help fill the gap in entries on male and female artists on Wikipedia and am dismayed to find any number of male artists whose accomplishments don't hold a candle to those of this individual. I would very much appreciate any guidance on this matter. Thank you. Gaw54 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaw54: I don't think anyone is saying that this person categorically isn't notable, but rather that notability hasn't yet been adequately demonstrated. You need to show, and corroborate with reliable sources, that they satisfy either the general WP:GNG notability standard, or the special WP:ARTIST one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, Gaw54, prose like As a feminist riposte to the embargoes of Donald Judd and others, her sculptures converted primary structures into upholstered, pillowed, buttoned, and bowed boxes. This decorative re-surfacing was a paradoxical suggestion of depth. Padded and essentially wrapped, the cubes acquired an inside or at least the lure of an inside. But the interior was never accessible or even fully present. Unlike Judd's polished objects that push the viewer out centrifugally, Rychlak's impel one's gaze away from the sculptures by replicating their surroundings. Her mirrors force the viewer to look inside the box to see not only the duplicated surroundings but also the perceiving subject, thus providing the elusive "content." is not the way an encyclopedia article should be written. This hifalutin prose style obscures and intrigues perhaps, and may be appreciated in certain corners of academia, but it is not the crisp, clear language of descriptive encyclopedia writing. Your prose must be accessible to newcomers to your topic, not just to enthusiasts and insiders. Do not make your readers respond with "what the heck?" Cullen328 (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt reply. Actually, this is exactly what one reviewer is saying "Please provide sources for the public collections, notability hinges on this." That seems pretty categorial to me, given that the collections where her work can be seen don't have online collection access. And this is the first time this criteria was mentioned, despite previous reviews of the piece by this specific editor. It just seems like the bar for acceptance keeps moving. I think that the 25 sourced references, including multiple highly regarded publications and exhibitions, has been easily established. I'm at a loss as to what more is being asked for to pass this hurdle. Gaw54 (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that is being asked is that you provide sources for the content, it's an absolute basic necessity of editing Wikipedia, if the awards and collections are not sourced then we can't confirm that they pass the notability criteria WP:NARTIST, merely having exhibitions doesn't make them a notable artist. Theroadislong (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaw54 More “what the heck?” content includes Visibility is low, so low that if images are discerned at all, they are reduced to a wavering generality. The image inside the clean white box, reminiscent of medicine cabinets, can be read as banal or sinister, or just mysterious., If this is a quote then it needs a source if it is your own opinion it should be removed as original research. Theroadislong (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that 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) 21:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adamu ab (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dela Yawo Seade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why are requesting assistant Adamu ab (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Adamu ab, your draft was declined because the writing is too promotional. However, I think this was an incorrect decline, as I also do not find that the subject passes our notability guidelines. Please see WP:NBIO for these guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 김낙회 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Kim Nack Hoi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Submission of this article has been rejected. I would like to know why my draft submission was rejected. I would also like to ask for advice on how to solve this problem. 김낙회 (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@김낙회: as it says in the decline notice (did you read that, by any chance?), the draft is insufficiently referenced, which is to say it is completely unreferenced, since the only alleged reference isn't actually a reference at all. Articles on living people must be comprehensively supported with inline referencing to reliable published sources; see WP:BLP for more info on this, and WP:REFB for advice on referencing. Appropriate referencing is also a requirement for notability, see WP:GNG, which is a core requirement for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, and that 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) 21:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaliper1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hirohara Shrine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A non-authorised move was done from Draftspace to Mainspace, by User:WC gudang inspirasi , done without the nesecity reviewing processes or done by an authorised reviewer (ie. admin, oth.) (See: history) The same user have done the same act with two other articles. indeed this would be a WP:AFCREVIEW case and thus not valid I assume, so i reverted and move my drafts submition back to Draftspace. Thus for my question is, would this affect my submission? Cheers. Kaliper1 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: rest assured, that move or your return move, does not affect the AfC review process or the draft's prospects in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well thats good to know,

however my draft assessment still holds the id 'redirect' and the draft isnt appearing in my selected WikiProjects's Draft-Class Pages for review (that is in Architecture, Japan, and Indonesia). Is there a way to fix this? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking into my draft's source editing to rechange the assesment scale. I then tried to re-add manually to the wikiprojects's drafts list for review. yet I cant seem to find a way to fix this.. I'm hoping its not permanent, is it? Kaliper1 (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: sorry, I'm not sure what you mean, what "draft assessment", and what "id 'redirect'"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing yes, I mean the assesments here if im not mistaken. When drafts are sent or submitted, its supposed to be a draft class article. Now due to the erroneous move by said user, what supposed to be the draft article becomes a redirect class article. Thus I fear that due to this, it renders the review process harder to do so since in wikiprojects, it would not show up in draft articles if im not wrong? (eg. when searching up the drafts class articles in wikiproject Japan, Indonesia, and Architecture for 'Hirohara' it doesnt appear. it did before the move..)

sorry for my wording. my first language sadly is not english. really sorry! Kaliper1 (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I did ask for a review by the Assesment Department however. To change back to draft class. (WP:WPWP/ASSESS) Kaliper1 (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok really sorry for the confusion!

Update: I've managed to re-add my draft to the given wikiprojects after deleting and re-adding the tags. and Now for the Assesment, I think that would change after review process once the draft is accepted. Thus, problem mostly solved!

Terima Kasih! - Kaliper1 (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaliper1: don't worry about the ratings for now, they only become relevant if/when the draft is accepted. (And FWIW, I believe they were at draft class when I looked earlier, and are the same now, so look to be in order.) Yes, in theory adding WikiProject tags to a draft may draw some attention from the projects in question, but in practice this seldom results in anything, and in any case won't affect the draft's passage through the AfC review process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've warned the user, asking them to stop moving drafts past AfC; turns out this wasn't their first one, either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• IRKTC (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Krungthai Card (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

May I know the reason for the rejection of the submission due to being a company profile with referenced information? IRKTC (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IRKTC: this draft hasn't been rejected yet, only declined, although it will be rejected if you keep resubmitting without any attempt to improve it.

The reasons for the earlier declines are given in the decline notice, specifically inside the grey boxes.

I believe you are an employee or agent of this company. Please disclose your paid-editing status per the message I've posted on your talk page. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRKTC First, if you work for this company(I note you claim to have personally created the logo, more on that in a second) you are required by the Terms of Use to disclose that, see WP:PAID, and also WP:COI.

Wikipedia does not have "profiles", not a single one. Wikipedia has articles, typically written by independent editors. Those articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about(in this case) a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell about themselves and what they do- we are interested in what others wholly unconnected with the company choose to say about it. This does not include press releases, interviews, announcements of routine business activities, or primary sources. The "vision" section is wholly unencyclopedic and should be removed.

You claim to have personally created the logo of the company- if you did, okay- but I assume that you did so just to upload it to Commons; by doing this you are indicating that you want to make the logo available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. This would mean that someone could take your company logo, print it on shirts, sell them, and your company would not entitled to any money from the sale of its own logo. If you don't want to do that, or don't have the authority to decide that, you should immediately request deletion of the logo from Commons. Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally under "fair use" rules. That does carry some restrictions, such as not being able to be in drafts- but images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until and if the draft is accepted. 331dot (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and content like "We also cultivate a culture of Trusted Organization to meet the expectations and build confidence among stakeholders, ensuring sustainable growth." is totally inappropriate marketing speak. I'm surprised it hasn't been rejected already. Theroadislong (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IRKTC: All of your sources are unusable. We don't cite stock tickers and everything from the company's website is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I'll also echo my colleagues that this reads more like a brochure aimed at potential investors than a neutrally-written encyclopaedia article aimed at Ubon from Bangkok. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 16:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Amirdelv (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Mars (Indian TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How can i improve this article Amirdelv (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirdelv: by addressing the reasons for the decline(s). Your referencing is pretty useless, and fails to both establish notability and verify the draft contents. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can you suggest me some sites for movie or tv series reference? where i can search for this series. Amirdelv (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirdelv: no, I cannot, as I've no knowledge of or interest in Indian television. You should be citing the sources where you got this information from, and if those sources aren't reliable (as is the case here), then we couldn't accept this draft anyway. Which is another way of saying that you should be basing the information on reliable and independent sources, and merely summarising what they have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to create an article on a subject, then your very first task, before you do anything else, should be to find several reliable, independent sources, that treat the subject in some depth - see golden rule for the criteria you should apply to each source.

The reason that this should be your very first task is that if you cannot find such sources, then the subject cannot meet Wikipedia's criteris for notability, and the article will never be acceptable. If this is the case, then every single second that you have spent doing anything on the draft other than looking for sources has been time and effort completely wasted. ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FF184 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joanna Settle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know what to do to exactly improve the article for publication. Currently all citation of evidence are correct and included. FF184 (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FF184: I couldn't understand when I reviewed this, and still don't understand now, what makes this person notable, ie. on what basis is notability being asserted? You need to show how they meet one of the defined notability standards, either the general WP:GNG or a special one eg. WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 137.22.176.98 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Franks Waffle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not really too sure how I can change this for it to be approved. 137.22.176.98 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been deleted as promotional. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Usr TC17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tenderstories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good morning, I need help identifying a reliable source. In the first submission, I provided 50 sources, while in the second, I provided less than 10. Could you please provide me with an example of a reliable source from among these? I have many articles and interviews about Tenderstories in film magazines and online newspapers. Could you assist me? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usr TC17: I don't think the reviewer was saying that your sources are unreliable, but rather that the draft is not adequately supported by referencing, with much of the content without citations.

If you want to understand what we mean by reliable sources more generally, see WP:RS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok if the citations from the sources are in Italian but translated in English? Usr TC17 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Usr TC17: non-English sources are fine, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. standards.

Having said which, I did wonder why it is that all the sources are in Italian, given that the company is UK-based? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The company is UK-based, but its productions take place in Italy for films that are primarily released in the Italian market. Let me know if this is an issue. Usr TC17 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Not a problem, I was just being curious. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 193.60.60.68 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Natural Resources Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We're having trouble understanding which sections need reliable sources and which sources aren't considered reliable. Could you provide an example? 193.60.60.68 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", accounts are strictly single person use. Wikipedia has little interest in unsourced, promotional mission statements, activities and organisation details. Theroadislong (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend finding 2 published independent sources that have in-depth coverage of Natural Resources Institute, put them in the article. If you find those and ping me and point them out I'd be happy to help. North8000 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mantascool44 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Mantascool44/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone make a description of the brand? I am the owner of the NANO GO brand, founder, 100% shareholder and director of NANOGO DETAILING. Mantascool44 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a business directory, so a company is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. All topics must be notable by Wikipedia's definition to merit inclusion. In the specific case of a company, it must meet the notability criteria for companies and organizations. For this to happen, the company must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We have no interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, as this is an inherent conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an answer. Mantascool44 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• OP now blocked. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 207.237.186.122 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Martin Cabrera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Helping to clarify edits that need to be made. 207.237.186.122 (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display. Please see the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every link you provide for your citations are malformed and point to HTTP 404 errors. The sole exception is to a PR Newswire piece, which is useless for notability as PR Newswire only ever publishes press releases (connexion to subject). Fix your links. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the links myself to assess them (protip: "/amp/title" breaks URLs) the lot of them are worthless.

• We can't use https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/march-2012/100-most-powerful-chicagoans-martin-cabrera-jr/ (too sparse). Too short to cite.
• https://inroads.org/martin-cabrera-ceo-and-founder-cabrera-capital-markets/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The first sentence describes him as "an INROADS alumnus".
• https://www.cct.org/our-community/profile/martin-cabrera-jr/ is useless for notabiliy (connexion to subject). He serves on CCT's board.
• https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/program-teaches-chicago-students-financial-literacy-with-real-money/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Quotes from him, no actual discussion of Cabrera.

You need better sources across-the-board. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the-subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Cabrera at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to rigourous editorial oversight, including fact-checking. Without sources that meet those criteria, we can't even discuss having an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 19:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 45.62.186.1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Punch (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hiii! I'm trying to understand which of the references are why this draft got rejected and why so I know what to change! Thank you! 45.62.186.1 (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on your article. The subject of separate articles needs to meet Wikipedia's WP:Notability requirement which can be confusing. To meet this it needs to meet either meet the requirements of an applicable special notability guideline (which IMO is not an option for your subject) or meet WP:GNG, Wikipedia's sourcing-based General Notability Guideline. So, roughly speaking, to meet that requirement you need to include two independent published sources (occasionally 1 will do) which cover the topic of your article in depth. So it's not about notability by the common meaning of the term, it's about finding two sources each of which meets all of those criteria. My suggestion is to look for and include those sources. If you are unable to find sources which meet all of those criteria, IMO it's best not to pursue creating a separate article for this subject. Happy editing! North8000 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kaitlynnellis (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Haley A. Vlach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am editing my draft page and want to know what portions need more references. Kaitlynnellis (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaitlynnellis: All of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fastbean (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Post News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand how these cannot be better sources - they are primary sources - announcements made by the CEO for the most part. Unless a company is large, it's executives in the media, or they somehow capture the zeitgeist, I'm not sure that there is much chance of independent sources that are not derived directly from the company of interest.

For example, here's a news story about the announced closure of Post: https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2024/04/22/post-social-platform/

That news story quotes the Post post that I used as a reference. Is this somehow a more reliable source? fastbean (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastbean Wikipedia may not base articles upon primary sources. Wikipedia is dependent upon secondary sources.

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

We have no interest in what the CEO says about Post News. We need to know what is said by others about it. Please read HELP:YFA 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• NWUCU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Petros Koutrakis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, could you provide examples of what primary sources are examples of reliable sources? I do believe that this article makes it clear that the subject has had a notable impact on the field of study, which should satisfy the academic-specific criteria at least in part. I am looking for ways to meaningfully strengthen the article before resubmission. Thank you! NWUCU (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NWUCU: Have you read WP:NACADEMIC? (Academics have a somewhat different standard since the vast majority of them, if they're properly doing their jobs, don't make the headlines.) The page explains how best to prove its various prongs. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Elina Lovtsova (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Linebet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good afternoon, please tell us in more detail what the reason for the refusal was, were links to independent sources such as The Mail & Guardian provided, or were not enough sources provided? Elina Lovtsova (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is us? User accounts are strictly for single person use. You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Lovtsova The sources don't just have to be independent, they must provide significant coverage of the subject, describing how they see the company as important/significant/influential- what we call the definition of a notable company. That your company has a "brand ambassador" is not significant coverage- that is a routine business activity. You have no sources with significant coverage of your company, they just serve to document its existence and activities. 331dot (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]