• Mem271 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Elizabeth Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi all,

I have had some helpful feedback on my page for Elizabeth Ford and some editors appeared willing to support it on mainframe. However 'Sulfurboy' is particularly non-helpful with his rejection.

First of all, I think that Sulfurboy has attempted to respond to the first edit, not the second that everyone else was looking at when they were suggesting it's readiness for the mainframe.

Secondly, Sulfurboy says I haven't used references that can be checked: yet, all the printed information is available in the State Library of Western Australia. As part of the second edit, I put in extra refs, but I don't think he has seen them and instead has repeated his idea that I haven't used references and have used colourful emotive language.

Just to add to that, Sulfur boy's criticism re: the mention of awards is really unwarranted, given that this is just a list of awards she received in her lifetime. I am not promoting her - I am simply writing down what she received as is mentioned in the art books in the library.

Further, I was working within a wider project to bring Western Australian female artists to the fore with the Lawrence Wilson Art Gallery. So, it boggles my mind that he can right this off so easily.

Last, I apologise if I don't respond in the right forums in the right way but I find this framework immensely difficult to negotiate. Please help. My only motivation is to see an esteemed artist find her place - without prejudice.

Regards,

Mem 271

Mem271 (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mem271, Sorry that you've had such a rough time navigating the structure of drafts, but this is the right place to ask. We're glad you're here, and tackling underrepresented women. I hope you take some of Sulfur's advice, they have provided lots of inline tags that can help direct your cleanup. I'm pinging them Sulfurboy, hopefully they can help you figure things out. You might also wish to ask for help at WikiProject Women in Red's talk page, they specialize in making articles for women. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping CaptainEek Mem271, I'm sorry you found me to be "non-helpful". After your last tirade in which you accused (without cause) a fellow reviwer of gendered bias, I chose to go above and beyond what I normally would do in a review process as to keep everything above board. Very clear reasons for rejection were provided to you and including what could be improved instead of just rejecting with a boilerplate template. Further, I went through the extra effort of tagging each spot in the article that is unsourced puffery or opinions. Playing victim, accusing others of prejudice, and complaining about perceived wrongs in the system will not serve as a substitute for actually putting in work to improve the article. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Mandlanotyawa (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:UDubs Radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Mandlanotyawa (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mandlanotyawa, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 76.170.151.178 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amin shahrbanoo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

76.170.151.178 (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

What is your question? 331dot (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Salut65 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mrs. Pakistan World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wanted to include this article in the wikipedia, and the resources are strong with the proper news links. Please advise if there is anything else that needs to be included. Thank you. --Salut65 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Salut65 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Salut65:, I understand your concerns but the history section has unnecessary details, which repeat in title holder section and there is no inline citation in the head section. Also, there is already a page existing Miss Pakistan World, why do you need to create a new page with alternate title. You simply can make Draft:Mrs. Pakistan World, a redirect page to Miss Pakistan World by placing #REDIRECT Miss Pakistan World tag on the page. Cheers - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 13:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Every entity is different - For example please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs._World and then there is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_World and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_World

Miss World has a bigger history section as it started 100 years ago. But Mr. World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_World is new and has the similar concept as Mrs. Pakistan. If fact is has lesser info than Mrs. Pakistan World. Please note that If you look at this link for India - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_India Most of the contests are done by the same company but each event and entity has its own name and brand. Miss World cannot list Mr. World and Mrs. World under its section. Similarly, Femina Miss India cannot list Miss Diva and Femina Look of the Year under one section. As each event has a unique identity. Miss is for single women and has the history of single women, MRS is for married women and cannot be listed under a single "Miss" category. Same goes for Mister category which is male only.

If you look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Diva , here you will find that Miss Diva is a part of Femina Miss India, even though Femina Miss India is a beauty pageant but has separate identity. All these events could have redirected to Femina Miss India but they don't and cannot as each event has its own identity.

Please do let me know if there is something that can be expanded. Mrs. Pakistan World has its own identity and cannot be listed or redirected to a "Miss Pakistan" category. I will be still working on the article, as I do think that it was a premature submission. But any other advise would help.

Thank you. --Salut65 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Rogerkuznia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jayson Waller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello all, I am seeking feedback on why this article was rejected. I've revised it twice, and I believe the only reason for its rejection is because I am a paid editor. I understand the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, that Wiki cannot be a soapbox or vanity press or advertising platform, and this submission is none of those. It has 16 sources -- nothing in the submission lacks a source -- which should be a clear indicator of notability. My submission is written in a neutral tone (I learned that in prior drafts). I've followed all the rules, including acknowledging that I am a paid editor, and yet I think that's the sticking point here. But among those five pillars, there's a line that "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." Please take a critical look at my submission, and tell me what is wrong with the copy. It follows the Good Article criteria, with the exception of lacking an illustration, audio or video. Thank you. Rogerkuznia (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Draft is just a paid for puff piece with multiple non notable awards “EY Entrepreneur of Year Southeast Award”,  Most Admired CEOs of 2020”, “Champions of the New Economy”, Professional of the Year”. Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• ProtectONE original (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:TICKLESS®️ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please, I wrote this article, this is a story of TICKLESS brand, I tried to wrote it in formal form, not focus on advertising, I know this is an enciclopedy. If my work is not good, please help me to write it in the acceptable form. I tried to delete thing which were more "advertised text" so I would like to ask you to read it again. ProtectONE original (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Spam, and user has been blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Kingof23s (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ParsaPnp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kingof23s (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Kingof23s. Not every article is notable for inclusion into Wikipedia. To merit inclusion into Wikipedia, the subject of your article must be supported by multiple independent reliable sources. Currently your article has none. Also if you have a conflict of interest, please declare that following the guidelines on the page I have linked. Thanks and let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kingof23s, I rejected your article as it isn't notable for inclusion for Wikipedia. In doing so I had to fix the submission template that you had. But it seems as if the software thinks I submitted the article. So now I'm going to copy and paste the decline message on your talk page. Hopefully this doesn't cause any confusion! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Seems as if it has already been done. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Arief Salim (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mohamed Dirani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

My name is Arief and I am writing a Wikipedia article about Associate Professor Mohamed Dirani, who is the current Managing Director of Plano Pte Ltd and holds several Honorary roles in the Singapore Eye Research Institute and Centre for Eye Research Australia.

Referring to my second submission, which was declined on 5 March 2020 with the following comment: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies."

I received this exact comment for my first submission rejection. From there, I improved the second submission by omitting subjective wording and sentences, as well as any form of 'sell' in the new submission. However, the second submission was also rejected with the same comment. Therefore, may I inquire on how to best address this comment so that my submission can be approved?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Arief Salim (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Arief Salim, I think the advertisement part of your article comes from phrases like "connecting people through love and art" and this unnecessary description of the company ("The company manages smart device use and eye health among children and adults, with an emphasis on the management of myopia"). I think the more pressing concern is (1), all information must be verifiable. If the information on his accomplishments/life in general can't be verified in sources then it should be deleted. Also, a Wikipedia article must be supported by multiple independent reliable sources. Your first source seems to be some sort of press release so not independent while the second is user generated content so also not independent. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Kingof23s (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ParsaPnp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kingof23s (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kingof23s, Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Bobswift12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Bobswift12/sandbox/Irish Titan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm looking to understand how to build a business page that isn't seen as advertising? Other businesses have pages, what are your suggestions?

Bobswift12 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Bobswift12, there are a lot of things that go into writing a neutral article. I'll only touch on the main points here. You say "they offer creative, strategic, and technology services for their clients." This is opinion written as fact. "Creative" services is a very opinionated statement, but it is written as if it is 100% true. This can be modified into a fact. This occurs throughout the article. The article gives undue weight to "accomplishments" or details that support the company. For instance "These are referred to as P.O.T.I.S. They stand for Passion, Ownership, Teamwork, Impact, and Skills" is certainly not needed in any neutrally written article. I should also note that the subject of your article likely isn't notable. That is, it is supported by multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article with more than a passing reference. I would encourage you not to edit this article further though and perhaps move onto other articles that are already included in Wikipedia. Your article has been rejected, which means it is unlikely it will be reviewed again. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Solangelo19 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Facts about the Body (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  They rejected my article it was a pretty good article too. I'm hurt.

Solangelo19 (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Solangelo19, There's no reason to be hurt. Nothing about the rejection was meant to be personal. I would recommend checking out the welcome message on your talk page. It has a good starting point of links and articles to read about how to create and contribute to Wikipedia. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Alina Karastamatova (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Montenegro and the Euro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Alina Karastamatova (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sulfurboy, thanks for approving my page. However I have to draw your attention to the fact that this page was planned to replace already existent one - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro_and_the_euro, which provides much less information on the matter. I count on your support. Alina

You should not have submitted a draft article but instead have edited the existing one here Montenegro and the euro. Theroadislong (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Cinephile786 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Danish Renzu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

UNFAIR REJECTION OF ARTICLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Danish_Renzu The person has notable press on him : www.danishrenzufilms.com, two feature films and still it's not being accepted here.. please advice.

Cinephile786 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Let's go off of WP:GNG to make this simple. In brief, that means you must have multiple independent reliable sources to back up your article. Here's a source by source analysis. [1] seems to be an autogenerated profile of sorts, perhaps a user written profile, and thus doesn't meet the reliability criterion. [2] could be debatable in meeting the notability criteria. It is mostly interview (not reliable or independent), but does have some introduction before it. [3] demonstrates notability. However you need multiple (typically interpreted to mean three) sources that meet these criteria. Just add these sources to the article and you will meet the notable criteria. Next, you should clean your submission of "advertisement" like content. That is, a lot of your submission seems to be written like a promotion. Wikiepedia articles must be written in a neutral tone. For instance, "starring Academy winning" doesn't need to be there. Also subtle phrases like "He even took" suggest an opinion of the author of the article, which means that the article isn't written in a neutral tone. Please clean up these issues before resubmitting. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Punk Hazard (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Divertimento for Alto Saxophone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First I want to say that it doesn't make sense to judge classical music compositions by the general music notability guidelines, which obviously don't take it into account at all. You can't expect any divertimento's recording to be on a billboard, and that's definitely not what may make such works notable.

But at least I think it complies with the first rule. Sequenza21 and Musicweb International are serious independent sources on classical music and pretty much online magazines. They aren't personal blogs, they have a staff structure. AllMusic even has its own article. While a CD liner notes being a secondary source may technically be disputable, they are written by Morohide Katayama, who isn't some Naxos Records employee but a musicologist and politologist and has published books on the topic (20th century Japanese classical music) so I believe that provides some academic assessment on the composition.

Punk Hazard (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Punk Hazard, your article wasn't rejected, so it can sources likely exist out there that could establish notability. I assume you're referring to WP:NMUSIC. Although some of these guidelines are biased towards more "popular" music, I will admit, but some of them, like being rotated on a major radio station, aren't. Classical radio stations do exist. But anyway, that's by there are also general notability criteria. This allows articles that don't fall into any of the categories specified in specific notability criteria to still be labelled as notable if they are supported by multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. I'll go by the general criteria and evaluate each of your sources for you.

I went through them, and actually I do agree with you: these sources in general indicate notability. The reason I think it might have been misleading to a reviewer (I would be confused too) is that the sources you provide that have professional reviews appear in a user generated format, when really they aren't. I'm going to move the article to the mainspace for you, as it now meets notability standards. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I do hope you continue as I see you've written a great article here! Sam-2727 (talk)

• Iregno8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jonathan Andrew Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am requesting a re-review of the page created as I was incorrectly assumed to be the subject the page is about. I, in error, used the subject's name as the username when creating an account hence why I'm here. Can you please have a look and let me know where I stand? Thanks! Iregno8 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Iregno8, I've removed the rejection and resubmitted the article. It will be reviewed again in due time, but I would highly recommend continuing to try to establish notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sulfurboy I have added to notability - subject was invited and spoke at the Oxford Union in 2016 (link to YouTube video included) as well as an interview on ITV's Good Morning Britain. Hope this is sufficient. Iregno8 (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Sulfurboy:, just an FYI, interviews rarely add to notability, as they are inherently non-independent Nosebagbear (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nosebagbear, I assume you meant this to be directed towards Iregno8? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sulfurboy, yes, apologies Nosebagbear (talk)

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

Lita Evandre (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

06:19:16, 25 March 2020 review of submission by Lita Evandre

• Lita Evandre (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User talk:Lita Evandre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Lita Evandre, your submission doesn't have any prose content. A Wikipedia article must go beyond an info box. Also, autobiographies are highly discouraged. Finally, you must provide sources that establish the notability of the subject. That is, multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject significantly. Your article has been rejected, which means no further action on it can be taken. If you enjoy editing Wikipedia, I would recommend you edit an already created article as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Aslah k (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Maktoob Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aslah k (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Aslah k, Wikipedia articles are not for promotion. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles: collections of facts for a reader. Thus Wikipedia articles must be written in a neutral tone without promotional language such as "pioneered upon the efforts of two college students" and "An excluseve video posted" (although these are just examples). Also, a reviewer has determined that the subject of your article likely isn't notable, which means no further action can be taken. That is, your submission won't be reviewed again. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would suggest you edit an already existing article as creating your first article is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• AbdulRehman0364 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hadistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

AbdulRehman0364 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

AbdulRehman0364 What is your question? 331dot (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 198.200.115.29 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Timothy Sandefur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

P.S. I know it can take a long time to get back with a response for submissions such as mine and as such I am grateful that you wer able to get back so quickly. Thank you 198.200.115.29 (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Your article is essentially a resume of the subject. That is, except for the last sentence, it is a list of their accomplishments. Also, a reviewer has determined that the subject of your article likely isn't notable. That is, there aren't multiple independent reliable sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would encourage you to edit an already existing page as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Jcollinsycc (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Charles S. Fuchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am adding a scientific paper citation for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Charles_S._Fuchs His most cited work has over 300 collaborative authors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22810696). When I'm listing the names of the authors for the citation, should I include all of the names, or just the first few and then Dr. Fuchs? Is there a way to add "et al" to the citation, if that would be appropriate? Not sure of the best way to proceed. Thank you for any help! Jcollinsycc (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Jcollinsycc, I think the way to do that is to just use the automatic citation creator. So just enter the link, and the citation comes out as this^[1]. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sam-2727, I didn't even know that was an option - thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcollinsycc (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Sawhitney36 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Underrated Youth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, I would like to understand why my draft was declined, I'd like for the understanding to be a bit clearer, from Robert McClenon's review I'm understanding that it was because it didn't qualify for an article to be made on it as it didn't have significant coverage. But that's what I don't understand. It charted and was talked about and I found a page on here about an EP that doesn't have siginicant coverage: Sarah Close's Caught Up EP the page is almost empty. I know I'm still a beginner editor but Wikipedia's rules and guidelines confuse me a lot. There's also a lot of rules and guideline pages on Wikipedia and I haven't read most of them because I haven't been able to find most of them. If it's badly written, can I at least have some help with that from better editors? Or do I have the wrong understanding of their review?

Sawhitney36 (talk) 14:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

This better not be declined... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:4C33:3369:AEC8:B806 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sawhitney36. Not all articles on Wikipedia are model examples. The page you reference likely isn't notable (at least by the sources provided in the article). The problem of Wikipedia having too many guidelines is a common complaint. Let me help you out a bit. I do agree that your source is notable. I'd just clean up the article to make that clearer. First off, just remove all of your unreliable sources. That is, any time you reference twitter or youtube, just remove that from the article (and the information that it is being used to back up). Also remove references to the "yungblood store," as this isn't a secondary source. This will make your article supported by only reliable sources. Finally, try making the article less of a promotional tone. Specifically, remove the phrase "Credits adapted from Tidal." (just cite directly from that source, no need to say "adapted from"). I would also in general delete that entire "personnel" section as it isn't necessary to know every sound engineer that was part of the production of the album. There are also slight examples throughout the article of stating opinions as facts. For example, "that he had a surprise in London on a boat at the," this is presumably a surprise from the opinion of the artist, not everybody. So put "surprise" in quotes or quote the artist here to ensure that the "surprise" isn't stated as fact. Let me know if you have any other specific questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sam-2727. Thank you for reading the article through thoroughly and helping me out. I have removed all of my twitter and youtube sources but I'd just like to ask why a twitter source, when coming straight from the artist, is an unreliable source? I have also removed the Personnel section and adapted the surprise part and artists store. I had formatted the page from other EP and album pages on here so I thought the Personnel section and referencing to the artist store was a thing that you were supposed to do. I'm slowly learning a lot about Wikipedia rules, do's and don'ts and I have actually learned a lot from your reponse so thank you. Sawhitney36 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sawhitney36, I'm going to respond to you on your talk page before this gets archived. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Renwang101 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Document Management in E-government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I recently submitted an article to Wiki, but unfortunately been rejected, I asked the reviewer to provide more specific reasons, but only some words that didn't make sense to me. The article URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Document_Management_in_E-government

I hope to get some help to make this article been published.

Best regards,

Ren

Renwang101 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Renwang101, sorry for the late reply. Your article has been rejected as being written in a promotional tone. That is, it doesn't present article factually, stating opinions as if they were facts. Let me know if you have any more specific questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Lijmaar (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Por qué no recibe mi nombre en wikipedia?Reply

Aún no eres notable. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1138:9EB0:D861:6BA8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1138:9EB0:D861:6BA8 (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You have not submitted any drafts to review. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you're asking about Draft:Battle For Dream Island, it has been rejected because the topic is not notable (not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Rejection is meant to be final, to convey that no amount of editing will make the draft acceptable, so volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Ennex2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

The submission of the page List of Excel functions was rejected and the link to the draft brings up a page that says it has been deleted. Is it possible for me to retrieve the code of the page that was submitted and deleted? I need it for my own reference. Ennex2 (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ennex2. You may ask the administrator who deleted it, DeltaQuad, but because it was deleted for infringing copyright, it's unlikely that anyone will retrieve it for you. More details can be found in a number of essays dealing with your situation, such as: Help:My article got nominated for deletion! and Wikipedia:Why was the page I created deleted?. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Eeberbach (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Evolutionary automata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Eeberbach (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Our submission does not advertise our research, and it does not constitute attack on a person or organization either. It is neutral and objective. It does not constitute new research, and is based on well-known reliable sources. It does not present new original theories, opinions, or insights that were not published before by many reputable sources. The article is notable in the sense that it covers important topics of scalability and expressiveness of EC, not addressed by other Wikipedia pages. We expanded introduction section to address the notability and importance of topics covered by this article. That approach is well-known for specialists in the EC area, but we believe that it should be interesting and useful for general Wikipedia readers who have all necessary explanations and defined concepts included in this submission. We added also the links to several existing related Wikipedia pages Note that the authors of this submission have many years of research and rich publication record in the area of submission – they were in program committees of multiple EC conferences, organized special sessions in congresses on EC, were associate editors and organizers of Ubiquity Symposium on EC in ACM Ubiquity Magazine journal with publications by top EC specialists (e.g., David Fogel, Zbigniew Michalewicz, Xin Yao, Hans-Paul Schwefel, David Wolpert, Moshe Sipper), and published many articles in the area (books, book chapters, journal and conference papers). Thus for sure, the authors of this submission can be considered the experts in EC area. Please unblock our submission (it was corrected according to advice Theroadislong) to allow unbiased neutral review. So far I have an impression that I am talking to the wall.

Eeberbach (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Eeberbach Who is "our"? Each account should be exclusively operated by a single individual and not shared. The draft does read as a explanatory essay rather than an encyclopedia article, which should only summarize what independent reliable sources state about a subject. The draft was rejected after numerous prior declines, meaning there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Eeberbach, see also the multiple pieces of advice you have been given in the past at the AFC help desk. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Our" is my co-author and authors of many publications used in this submission. I share their knowledge and reliable sources in the area. Both knowledge and sources are shared, and belong to humanity which is superset of Wikipedia. Because I used their work, I say "our", what should be interpreted in the positive and not negative term. The account is operated by a single individual, i.e. me, who does not hide behind anonymous names (like other Wikipedia editors), thus I did not violate any Wikipedia rule in that.

331dot can claim without any proof that the submission is still a[n] explanatory essay rather than an encyclopedia article despite that article does not diverge from other published pages on EC (evolutionary computation) - it is easy to verify that. It uses exactly independent and reliable sources - please prove that it is otherwise. I understand that for someone everything might look like an essay, despite that it is not. I can write and prove that 2 + 2 = 4, but someone can still claim that for him/her it does read as 5 rather than 4. And for such convictions anybody (including myself with my Ph.D.in mathematics) would be powerless.

331dot wrote that "The draft was rejected after numerous prior declines, meaning there is little chance it can be improved, unfortunately." Exactly, it was 6 declines and final rejection by Sulfurboy who wrote nonsense, did not understand anything from submission,thus with pleasure he blocked the submission entirely. All these were decisions based on misunderstanding, not real reviews. The first decline should not be counted as decline at all (Liance) - he declined it as an "empty" submission - I sent it in pdf, because information about formats accepted by Wikipedia were confusing and not sufficiently clearly provided. Only 3 next "reviews"/declines should be counted: one by Praxidicae who helped me with formatting sources (references and citing them in text). It looks that I convinced him that sources are reliable and their number is sufficient for Wikipedia submission. Next, 2 declines were by Theroadislong repeated practically the same comment about "reliable sources", despite that everything has been corrected, and then I started to understand that "The road to publishing the article would be really long" and steep. The 2nd review by Theroadislong was very short: "Appears to be original research." Note "Appears" - this means that he suspected that it might be original research, but was not sure about that. I proved that it was not original research but an encyclopedic summary of original research based on multiple reliable sources. After that I had 3 "reviews" (2 declines + 1 reject) by Sulfurboy who did not understand anything from submission, and was very subjective and biased in his opinion. He was the first to call it an essay, despite that submission did not have anything common with an essay. Additionally, two his first reviews were exactly the same, thus should be counted as one not two. Either, he was lazy to write a new text or this was an example of Wikipedia "stuttering", because it did not provide any new useful information for the author. After that, I got from Theroadislong some really useful comments (not counted as an official review, nevertheless useful). I agreed with his comments, and made all requested corrections, and I was totally astonished that as the result I got the final rejection from Sulfurboy, who became personally offended because earlier I questioned his motives and knowledge of the area of submission. He did not care about any corrections and wanted simply to penalize me as the retaliation. Because 3 of reviews by Sulfurboy were biased and not objective - I asked for an independent review done by person(s) who knows a little more the area of submission and will not write things that obviously were false. I never got any chance for that, despite that I asked for that multiple times, and made new corrections on rejected text. Thus from 7 reviews only 3 could be considered as reviews, and I should not be blocked by knockout Sulfurboy's decision in such circumstances - to not have any chances for publication in Wikipedia, which I consider that the submission in question would be very useful for general Wikipedia readers.

Eeberbach (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Eeberbach, Your apparent WP:COI with this article is quite overwhelming. You have accused and attacked multiple editors, insisting at nearly every turn that you are right and they are wrong. Your comments and continued use of an account by multiple people has made it clear that you do not have a willingness to follow even the most basic of Wikipedia policies.

This is exactly why Wikipedia highly discourages people from writing about subjects they have a close connection to, because people are not able to view criticism neutrally and further they view that said criticism as being based in ethos instead of logos. You/You all have called in to question the credibility of Wikipedia, but then turned to it for assistance in the same breath. Please understand that Wikipedia is not an outlet for you to further publish your research. Wikipedia is a collection of topics that are clearly demonstrated to be notable and (this is key) presented in a neutral and formal tone expected of the encyclopedia. Your name calling, accusations, degrading of the encyclopedia's integrity, willful ignorance of basic rules, and insistence of playing the intellectually superior card show that you approaching the topic neutrally is impossible to expect. This, in combination with the fact that the article is still so far from the expected tone show that continuing to review the topic would be an act of futility.

Name calling, accusing others of bias without merit, deriding a communal publication and insisting on intellectual superiority do not work in any academic field I'm aware of. I'm not sure why you (the collective we) thought it would work here. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• NuvaTelcon (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hey all. I posted on the Teahouse and was asked to come here. I just tried out my first Wiki article, a biography of a living person. It was declined due to not meeting the sourcing requirements: "Sources need to be independent of the subject". I was sure two of my sources, that of a large Guardian article and a short film published by National Geographic would be correct, with all the other sources supporting the information. However, both the reviewer and the users in the Teahouse disagreed. I've since added more sources which don't feature interviews with the subject, but I fear they won't be enough. Any chance I can get some advice, or a good example of a source or biography that fits the Wiki requirements? NuvaTelcon (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

NuvaTelcon. To be frank(and I apologize), the source you added are no different. They either consist of interviews/comments from Dunn or are not about him personally, but what he has done. What you have offered might make a good contribution to the 3D printing article, or perhaps an article about 3D printing in space, but not one about Dunn personally. Others may disagree with me, so feel free to get other opinions, but that's what I see. If you haven't already, please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

331dot, no worries about being frank. Thank you for your comments, both here and on the Teahouse. I understand your point of view - it could be hard to tell clever (or clumsy) self-promotion with sympathetic publications instead of a journalist genuinely going out to interview the subject. I was really hoping The Guardian had enough journalistic heft to be the latter. I had hoped, over time, to tie his article, along with Aaron Kemmer/Made In Space, Inc. and other NewSpace companies, into a better NewSpace article, or an article on industrialisation of space (I argued that Dunn is a leading advocate of this, and thus is notable). Maybe someone has a different opinion, but perhaps I'll just throw in the towel until more articles come out. NuvaTelcon (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

NuvaTelcon And it certainly could be that Dunn will get more coverage later. Your draft was declined, not rejected- which means there is at least a chance it can later make it into article space. It might just be too soon right now. Since your draft is in your sandbox, it will stay there for you to work on over time. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Sunstone23 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:MGP Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia, but I would like to request help in editing a draft for a company called "MGP Live." As I disclosed in the talk page for this draft, Massimo Gallotta (the founder and CEO of the company) is a personal friend of mine, and I think that the work his company has done deserves a Wikipedia page. I have been working on the new page, and I have been rejected twice. I am hoping that an experienced editor could take a look at this and share any updates, feedback, or suggestions that could improve the odds of this page being accepted.

I believe that MGP Live is noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia because it has played a significant role in developing the "live Video game music concert" phenomenon. The unique productions of MGP Live have also been covered extensively in international press including The New York Times, Financial Times, LA Times, Variety, and many other local and music-related news.

Any help or advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you very much! Sunstone23 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sunstone23 (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sunstone23, It needs to be clearly demonstrated how this subject passes the rigorous requirements of WP:NCORP. It is also highly recommend that you do not make contributions on behalf of a subject that you have a WP:COI with. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Beatleswillneverdie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What do I need to do for the article to be accepted? Can you give me some examples? Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Beatleswillneverdie, The article has been rejected which means that no level of fixing will make the song notable again. Please review WP:NSONG for guidelines surrounding recommended criteria for future song pages you might want to make. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have seen that books like “Nirvana The recording sessions” are good sources. I see that in all the other nirvana article. Can I use that as a reference?

Again, the article has been rejected which means it will not be considered further. You can add whatever you'd like to the draft, but that isn't going to change the fact that it won't be reviewed again. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Fojifon (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Fojifon, your article was rejected for two reasons. First, it doesn't appear that it meets Wikipedia's strict notability criteria. That is, it is unlikely that there exists multiple independent sources that mention the subject of the article non-trivially. More importantly (in my opinion), the article is written in a promotional tone, with the intent to promote the subject of the article rather than present neutral information about the subject of the article. Articles must be written in a neutral point of view. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would encourage you to edit one of the many already created articles, as creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have further questions! Sam-2727 (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• JWS89 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:International Teqball Federation (FITEQ) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, my submission for the International Teqball Federation was rejected because "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 of course want to rectify that but I wanted to check if the issue was with the number of sources I included or also with the sources I included? Obviously for some sections like rules of the game or member federations, the most reliable source is the website of the governing body which is what I have referenced. Is that acceptable or does it still need to be an independent reliable source? I am asking because I don't believe there will be many sources other than the governing body website that actually describe the rules in detail. I want to make sure I am getting this all right so it can be approved and I would greatly appreciate guidance on this. Many thanks in advance

JWS89 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

JWS89 If you are writing an article about the organization that governs this sport, the rules for the sport shouldn't be in it- they should be in the article about the sport itself. If the article is about the governing body, it should only describe what independent reliable sources say about the organization itself, not the sport. Those sources must also have significant coverage- meaning they should be more than just brief mentions or announcements of things the organization has done. Press release type articles are not acceptable as reliable sources for this reason. If the organization does not get significant coverage of itself, it would not merit a standalone article at this time.

If you are associated with this organization, you need to review WP:COI and WP:PAID for formal disclosures you may need to make. 331dot (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1984:6A1B:D588:44A8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:1984:6A1B:D588:44A8 (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! The only contribution from the IP address you are editing as is this page, but I see the draft that you are enquiring about. The subject that you are writing an article on likely doesn't comply with Wikipedia's notability criteria. That is, it isn't supported by multiple independent reliable sources, and those sources likely don't exist. Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable, nor are tweets or "fandom" sites. Additionally, your article seems to be written as a promotion. That is, by indiscriminately listing all characters on the T.V. show, there seems to be an intention to promote the T.V. show rather than presenting a neutral summary of information about it. If you would like to continue editing Wikipedia, I would encourage you to edit an article that has already been created. Creating your first article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Bamas100 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:African Trade Insurance Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand why the page is still marked as draft and I require assistance to move it to a publishable format. What do I need to do? Bamas100 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Bamas100 You have submitted the draft and it is awaiting review. This will take some time so you will need to be patient. I see that you have declared a COI, but you may need to make the stricter paid editing declaration. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

What might be confusing you is that the article was originally accepted by a bad faith editor. Did you perhaps have any connection to the user that originally accepted your article? If not, I apologize for the confusion. I will note that your article is currently at risk of being rejected because of a promotional tone. Sentences like "launches landmark USD500 million Credit" serve only to promote the subject and not present factual information about it. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

KennyParis (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, the page i'd like to create on the artists Picard Brothers keeps being declined because of my sources but i don't understand why. Would be great to have help on this please. Thank you

KennyParis As you were told in the comments on your draft, you have not offered independent reliable sources with significant coverage, like news stories about these musicians, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable musician. If such coverage does not exist, this pair would not merit an article at this time. It isn't enough to just cite the existence of their music. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Beatleswillneverdie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Even in His Youth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How come Nirvana songs like "Opinion" and "Talk to Me" have their own articles? Those songs were never even released while the band was together. And they even didn't chart anywhere. Some Nirvana songs didn't even chart and they still have articles. How did those get created when they didn't even enter any charts? Beatleswillneverdie (talk) Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Beatleswillneverdie Any subject, be it a song, business or person, merits an article on Wikipedia if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. The criteria for a notable song is at WP:MUSIC. Your draft only offers three sources that do not seem to have significant coverage of the song. 331dot (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Praundo (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Template:AFC submission/pending (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just submitted my draft (Draft:Burgundian State), followed the steps, but no pending submission banner appears. Is it normal? Sincerely yours Praundo (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Praundo It is at the bottom of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Removed pointer to twitter account. I apologize for mistake. As a newbie, it comes across as hostile to flag my page for speedy deletion without some dialog or chance to fix. Wikipedia user page guidelines say that brief bios are OK. IceAgeEcologist (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@IceAgeEcologist: It's fine to write a few sentences about yourself on your user page, in accordance with Wikipedia:User pages. Don't submit such pages for review by Articles for Creation (AfC). As the name implies, only content intended for article space should go through that process, and this content would not make an acceptable encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

[ actually, i'm requesting because he must be on Wikipedia so that people would know about him easily. He is a motivation for youth. After knowing his life journey, young students of the world will get motivation from this article. Mehr Shahrose Munir (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mehr Shahrose Munir: Wikipedia articles must have multiple reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. We don't create articles otherwise, regardless if you believe they "must" be on Wikipedia. You also probably need to disclose conflict of interest. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Beatleswillneverdie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I read an article can be notable if it "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries." I have included references from books, articles, and many more. Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Beatleswillneverdie, The key phrase you are missing here is "has been the subject". None of the sources that are independent of the subject show WP:SIGCOV of the subject. For example, take a look at Heart-Shaped_Box and note that there are sources and coverage that deal directly with the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Beatleswillneverdie, Also, just as a pro-tip, if a song by an artist as popular as Nirvana has been out for 20+ years and doesn't already have an article, then it is very unlikely that the subject is notable. There is a myriad of editors here fanatical about that band. Trust me, they would have created an article about it by now if it was notable. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sulfurboy, Thank you. I really appreciate you telling me. I now know what needs to be done for the future. Just kind of disappointed I spent a long time on research. Beatleswillneverdie (talk)

• SergeyImunify360 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

SergeyImunify360 (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC) This is not an advertising page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Imunify360, I don’t understand why all edits are regarded as advertising? Why for example these pages can exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAfee or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitdefender and Imunify360 can not? ThanksReply

There is no indication that this is a notable subject. Blogs and forums are not reliable sources either. Theroadislong (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Please can you assist, advice on how to be more notable or define notable 197.90.140.245 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notability requires significant coverage WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable, secondary sources WP:RS. Your article has been rejected which means it has been determined that the subject is not notable at this time. There's not a way to make someone "more notable" Sulfurboy (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 35winds (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Fumiko Ikawa-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

35winds (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I need some help with the reference section on the Fumiko Ikawa-Smith page. I think that I've added in the correct information as I can't find any more information. But the system appears to want more. Thank you for your advice, in advance.

• JclarkeFLA (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:ICON Park Orlando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting a re-review because I took out verbiage that made it sound like an advertisement and added another resource. JclarkeFLA (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

JclarkeFLA The problems still remain. It reads as a promotional brochure for the park. Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that there is little chance it can be improved, I regret to say. You have offered no independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the park. Wikipedia articles only summarize what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Renwang101 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Document Management in E-government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Made some changes, hopefully it is fine now, thanks. Ren Renwang101 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Renwang101 Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning there is little chance it can be brought up to standards. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I just got a brief message as below from 331dot:

Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning there is little chance it can be brought up to standards. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference between "rejected" and "declined".

Am I getting better or worse after few changes I made to the article?

Thanks!

Ren Renwang101 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please ask follow up questions in the same section as your existing question. As I said, rejected means it has little chance of being improved to the point where it would be a valid article. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Pilot333 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Renowned LA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pilot333 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The comment left by DGG is really vague and they haven't replied on what part of the Wikipedia guidelines this is failing. I'm assuming it was something they derived from WP:NOT but there's nothing there about press releases, so I can't find more specific info. The article put forward has no events or announcements, but rather just basic history, backed by some media coverage, which basically the bare minimum to get an article started while meeting WP:SIGCOV. I think it's clear the stub has no recruitment, opinions, scandals, gossip, or advertising and maintains a neutral point of view because of that. There's a lot of notable companies in the media that should have stubs (and AFC demonstrates this) but it can be hard to do so when the instructions are unclear.

Typically what "contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia" is referring to is an article written in a solely promotional tone. Your article seems to be notable, but would need to be almost completely rewritten to be written in a neutral tone. To be more specific, as that is what you request, the first sentence of the article is good. The second sentence "Founded in 2011 by John Dean and inspired by the street style of Southern California, Renowned LA is worn by celebrities such as Nicki Minaj, Bryson Tiller, Tyga and Chris Brown who wore a T-shirt on the cover of Nylon in 2013," for instance could be changed to "The brand was started in 2011 based off of "street" clothing in Southern California. Renowned LA has been noted in media outlets for being worn by Chris Brown." I only mention Chris Brown here because the article you cited simply says that that person worked with various celebrities, not that they wore his clothing. Even if you could provide verification that it was worn by multiple celebrities, it would be "more neutral" to write "various celebrities" instead of listing them. Hopefully this gives you a starting point. It would also be helpful to expand on the article to not only list the attention it has gotten in the media and provide actual details of the brand (for instance, descriptions of the clothing?). If you have further questions, follow up with me on my talk page. Your article has been rejected which usually means it can't be resubmitted but if you legitimately write it in a neutral tone, I'll review it (again, let me know on my talk page). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• BharathSD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Spark Databox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Added references from cbs19news, parade https://www.cbs19news.com/story/41948184/spark-databox-online-software-training-institute https://parade.com/1014515/jessicasager/free-online-courses/

BharathSD (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• BharathSD (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Spark Databox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Added proper categories, few notable mentions about Spark Databox. Kindly review and approve. BharathSD (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

BharathSD Your draft has been rejected, meaning that the topic is not suitable for an article at this time. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Scomic12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ustad Alauddin Khan (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I do not understand why this documentary does not deserve a page while other documentaries by the same director has a page (Fear, Amar Lenin, Ramkinkar Baij). The reviewer mentioned a lack of significant coverage in the references, but the other pages also have similar references or less. The only additional reference that the other have is from a book which does have this film as well but I don't remember the page or have access to it at the moment.Thank you. Scomic12 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Scomic12 It's not generally good to cite other similar articles as a reason for yours to exist, see WP:OSE. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about; feel free to point out other problematic articles that need to be addressed. Not every film by a filmmaker will merit a standalone article; if it does not get significant coverage in independent sources, showing how it meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable film, it will not merit an article. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:D05A:43CD:3E59:27E1 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bwncath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What can I do to improve this article?

2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:D05A:43CD:3E59:27E1 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

They would need to pass one of the criteria at WP:NMUSICIAN to qualify for an article. Theroadislong (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• JLbranch40 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Brian Hochstrat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In response to the latest rejection of the Wikipedia article submission, for artist Brian Hochstrat, the claim that the article does not meet the “significant coverage” requirement to justify the creation of a Wikipedia page is inaccurate, showing a lack of follow-through research, potential personal/political/cultural bias, and lack of subject matter/industry knowledge regarding the subject matter in which the artist works, on the part of the Wikipedia editor’s/reviewer(s). If the reviewer(s) would do their due diligence, the sources listed under the artist’s name, they will clearly see, the artist has been directly cited in seven “published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject”, spanning a number of fifteen plus pages that showcase and feature the artist's work, not to mention the venues at which the artist's work has been and is featured in, including several pieces on display in noteworthy museums. The publications and exhibits encompass the industry leaders, there are no higher gatekeepers. According to Wikipedia’s own definition of “significant coverage” as found at the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The artist has received coverage in several objective, industry-leading publications that meet and exceed the objective requirement of “significant coverage” and thus warrants the “honor” of having a Wikipedia page. For example, on the Wikipedia page of Buster Warenski, a well-known knifemaker, only six sources are listed and that Wikipedia page is “notable” enough to have been published.

I do no understand how my sources can continue to be rejected. I am not a fool. I have a bachelor's degree in journalism. I know what published, reliable sources are. The most recent rejection also details that I have not added any new sources since the last rejection. It's simply not true. I added "Turpin, Tom (Outdoor writer). Modern custom guns : walnut, steel, and uncommon artistry (2nd ed.). Iola, WI. p. 160. ISBN 9781440236440. OCLC 825734074." The three main sources are published books by industry experts. Here are the Amazon links. Someone, please explain to me how these are not sufficient.

https://www.amazon.com/American-Engravers-III-Masterpieces-Engraving/dp/1936120739/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=american+engravers&qid=1585412574&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Custom-Guns-Uncommon-Artistry/dp/0873414993/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=modern+custom+guns&qid=1585412917&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/American-Engravers-Edited-Fjestad-Bleile/dp/1936120070/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=american+engravers+the+21st+century&qid=1585413041&sr=8-1

The other sources are published professional magazines and official websites. I am increasingly becoming concerned that the article is being rejected because of the editors' personal feelings toward the subject of guns. Please, if that is not the case, enlighten me as to how these are not reliable sources.

JLbranch40 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Hochstrat hand engraves collector-quality firearms and knives using gold and other precious metal inlay, featuring extensive fine bulino and scroll coverage"... content like this would be fine on his own website but sounds too promotional for an encyclopaedia article. Are any of the awards notable? You are a single purpose account do you have a connection with the subject by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Gtrebg (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

You haven't asked a question. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello! I was thrilled to receive a message that a page I'd created, Dan Lam, made it into DYK. When I went to check it out, I noticed that more photos than I had remembered were removed from the gallery section. I can't seem to get a handle on what stays and what doesn't. I also know that a photographer who took some photos of the artist's work, posted some of them, but they were removed, too. My question is, can someone help? Not only are there many articles with pictures of the work, the artist's own flickr gallery has some that, as far as I can discern, have been tagged as open rights, within wikimedia commons guidelines for inclusion. Is there something relatively easy and obvious I'm missing? Any advice or help putting some images back in the gallery section would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! WriteIncunabula (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

WriteIncunabula (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi WriteIncunabula, it's certainly impressive that your article made it to DYK. I believe there was already a dense conversation that you participated in on the talk page to remove the image in the lead. That image was moved to another section because it didn't really contain a picture of the artist but really of her artwork. Looking at the history of the page, two images were removed because "the source of the derivative work wasn't specified." That is, because there was an inclusion of other content in the work not covered by its license, the source of that copyrighted content must be specified for the image to be kept in Wikimedia Commons. Then, once those files were deleted on commons, a bot came through and automatically removed them from the article. If you specify the source of the derivative work ensuring that the source allows free-use then you can add the images back to commons and use them on the article. I'm assuming (from the article) that the source of the derivative work is her artwork. If so, you must find reference that the artwork is free-use(I would be surprised if it was though). Sam-2727 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sam, thanks very much. You're right about the lead image, but I managed to move on from that. My first, only, and accidental foray into an edit war and I learned from it. :) As to my current question, I did notice at one point in the history it mentioned specifying the source, and was confused because I thought that the photographer had done that. If I understand you correctly, it's not only that the photographer has to list the image as free-use, but the original artist of the piece in the photograph as well. That does pose a difficulty I hadn't expected. Frankly, I was considering contacting a gallery or journalist with a polite note encouraging them to post just one or two images to wikimedia commons so that they might be included on the artist's page. It's not something I'd normally do, and I'd prefer to just work on pages without too much real-world interaction in an article's sphere, if that makes sense. Not sure if that gives you a specific question, but I think at this point it's probably best if I drop it and move on. I'm extremely pleased the article garnered some attention, and will watch to see what more experienced editors do with it as time passes. I really appreciate you taking the time today. WriteIncunabula (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend asking more questions on this over at Wikimedia Commons as I'm not the most knowledgable in this area. There actually is a process to get permission from artists. How it works is you tell them to contact via WP:OTRS giving proof that they are the artist and give permission to release the art under a free license. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I really appreciate the guidance, and I'll dig into it more than I have. I probably should have found that on my own, but someone pointing one in the right direction is a huge help. Thank you again. Fascinating stuff and I'll get more on top of it. WriteIncunabula (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

WriteIncunabula sure thing! Glad I could help! And don't worry too much about making mistakes. Most mistakes can easily be fixed due to the extensive edit history available on Wikipedia. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Patrick68005 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

I think I understand - generally - the part about how the data in an article should be verifiable against reliable published sources. I believe this article actually fills a need not met by the other sources: providing information on the architect of the so-called Fitchburg Furnace in Kentucky that, admittedly, exists nowhere else. What I don't understand is exactly why one article, for example -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_(drink) -- was deemed acceptable but my article on Frank Fitch was not? I'll agree that some data in my article such as details of his early life and family referenced an unpublished family history Fitch wrote in the 1910s; that was the only source for some of that information. In the article on Ski above, I do not see that the sources used in that article are any better than the ones I used in my article. Thanks - I look forward to getting some additional feedback. Patrick68005 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Patrick68005, if references aren't verifiable than they shouldn't be used. An unpublished biography shouldn't be cited as a source, and any information that can't be verified in another source besides that should be deleted from the article (this doesn't mean the sources have to be available online, but they should be published at the very least). This is critical in all Wikipedia articles so that readers can trust the information in the articles is correct. The main problem with your article isn't that the sources you have are bad, they just don't support the notability of the subject of your article. You have a lot of sources so I'm not going to discuss all of them, but as an example [4] only has one mention of the subject of your article. I would say as a minimum a source must have at least a paragraph on this specific person to count towards the notability criteria. And besides a significant mention, sources must be independent and reliable. This would mean that, for instance, his notebooks don't count towards this notability criteria. Usually you need three sources under these criteria to be considered notable. The article that you reference does have references to meet these criteria, although I should note that not all Wikipedia articles are model examples. For examples to model your articles off of, I would look at Good articles and Featured articles. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Beatleswillneverdie (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Moist Vagina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What references and sources can be used to make a song more notable?

Beatleswillneverdie (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Beatleswillneverdie, I would look over the general notability criteria for an idea of what to look for. I would start with looking for reviews of the song although sometimes news articles can be helpful. As pointed out by a reviewer, the article was previously deleted 12 years ago (which is I'll admit a long time ago) so try looking for sources that have been published since then that could establish notability of the article beyond that of the article that was deleted. Right now, a lot of the sources you have are just rankings of songs, which doesn't suggest notability as it gives no real information about the song (and is a trivial reference). Other sources also just include trivial references. Let me know if you're still struggling after looking for these types of sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sam-2727, I have been looking for hours and can't find any good sources. Can you please help? Beatleswillneverdie (talk)

Beatleswillneverdie as has been pointed out to you a few times now, some songs just aren't notable, even ones written by notable bands. If you aren't able to find additional sources to show notability, then it is likely this song just isn't notable. This song in particular has failed an AfD in the past and there's nothing to indicate it has become notable since. The first step in creating an article is first finding and confirming there are sources to denote notability and if there are THEN create a page. Otherwise, you're just going to keep getting yourself stuck in these points of disappointment where you create an article and then have to abandon the work you've put into since you didn't first check if it was notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Beatleswillneverdie: Returning to your original question, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources lists sources that Wikipedians have found useful when writing about albums and, by extension, songs. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:28B3:374B:3E3C:8568 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • No draft specified!

2600:1700:E5A0:2C60:28B3:374B:3E3C:8568 (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Did you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• A117.sau-rav (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bloom Nepal School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A117.sau-rav (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not for promoting anything. That page has been deleted, so nothing left to do here. If you make a new attempt, please avoid puffery. Wikipedia should maintain a neutral point of view. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• TheFuzzyDonut (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

TheFuzzyDonut (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Spignesi_Band

Good Morning! Hoping this message finds you well. Just looking for some tips/clarification on how to improve this article for approval. Thanks for all you guys do. I can't imagine this is an easy job ha!

Hi TheFuzzyDonut, I think the main way you can improve your article is to add sources that meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia. That is, add sources that are independent of the band and reliable and mention the band non-trivially. Currently, sources like [5] don't establish these criteria as it's really just a list of bands, not really anything in depth about this band in particular. Generally interviews like [6] aren't considered independent of the source. Finally, try to state everything in a neutral tone. Sentences like "The loss of Bob and his unique bass style was a devastating blow for Spignesi, having felt that JSB would never recover" are kind of dramatic (the word devastating and unique). Avoid stating opinions as if they were fact. Let me know if you have further questions. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• LL19861 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mommy Doesn't Want (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not want broke any rules or any law regarding placing those informations on Wikipedia (maybe improving it as format & graphic) about the short film "Mommy Doesn't Wants" (2016) produced by Amedeo Gagliardi, so i'm asking your help.

i received the authorization to do so by Mr. Amedeo Gagliardi himself which i'm honored to consider a friend.

LL 15:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi LL19861, check out other Wikipedia articles as examples on how to format yours. Currently, you're trying to include links using html, but you can't do this on Wikipedia. Instead, you use brackets. For instance, to link the website example.com, I write [example.com]. Also, try writing in prose format. That is, instead of listing facts, write in coherent paragraphs. Hopefully this helps! Sam-2727 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Kutuloncat3 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hi, I republished the page since 18 March but I did not get any further replies/comments/feedback.

How long does it usually take for a page to be published in Wikipedia?

Thank you. Jen Kutuloncat3 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kutuloncat3, it can take months for an article to be reviewed again. This can happen many times, so there is no set timeline for a Wikipedia article to be "published". It all depends on the quality of the article (the higher quality it is, the less time it will take to be "published") and a bit of random chance as reviewers make their way through submissions. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi (talk), I understand that is the case. However, I have come across this particular page that only lists two sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Securities_Indonesia,_PT). May I know is it still possible to get a Wiki page published with two secondary sources?

Thanks

Jennifer Kutuloncat3 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Lx005 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Halflives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This artist recently released a new record and gained popularity, having notably had coverage on Kerrang! and Rock Sound, also including a Rock Sound premiere and a Kerrang! print review in their March 14th 2020 issue (both outlets are listed as Reliable Sources here). Dead Press also reviewed the record here and they are also a part of the Reliable Sources mentioned previously. This artist also recently toured Europe with Icon For Hire which contributed to increasing their popularity. The information can be found on the previously mentioned Rock Sound article. This artist is also playing Two Thousand Trees Festival 2020, which has been announced on several Reliable Source websites such as Rock Sound or Dead Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lx005 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lx005 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lx005, I have removed the reject template which will allow you to resubmit it. However, you will need to incorporate all of those sources you mentioned before submitting or you'll likely face the same result. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Pennsylvania2 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Benchmark School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The AFD determined more sources needed to be added. I added more sources including from books. Should be a wikipedia page because there are sufficient sources.

Pennsylvania2 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pennsylvania2, John from Idegon has rejected the article which means it was determined that no amount of editing or revision would make the page appropriate for mainspace. You were advised multiple times that we needed to see coverage aside from just WP:LOCAL and WP:ROUTINE news. You also were advised at multiple times to remove the overly promotional language of the article and write it formally and neutrally. You failed to do so and were wasting the time of multiple volunteers by continually resubmitting without properly making an effort to address the issues. In the future, I would advise against creating article that you have a clear WP:COI with. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

So more than 5 books are not reputable?

Pennsylvania2, The books don't count towards the notability criteria if they are written by someone closely connected to the school, which I suspect from the titles of the books. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Where is the proof of that?

@Pennsylvania2: Child and Adolescent Development for Educators and Raising Reading Achievement in Middle and High Schools cite Irene W. Gaskins, the founder of Benchmark School, exclusively and heavily respectively. The chapter in Instructional Models in Reading is co-authored by Gaskins, and your links for Phonics from A to Z and Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy lead to Success with Struggling Readers, authored by Gaskins. The last may be a mistaken link on your part. You may have intended to link to chapter "A Beginning Literacy Program for At-Risk and Delayed Readers" in the named book, a chapter authored by, you guessed it, Gaskins. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• TheFuzzyDonut (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:John Spignesi Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

TheFuzzyDonut (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

TheFuzzyDonut (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:John_Spignesi_Band

Greetings -

Any tips for how to improve this piece for approval? It is my understanding that these sources are reputable as they are connected with BandCamp and Spotify, as well as the Press Release for the album. Any advice you have is much appreciated! Thanks for all you do!

TheFuzzyDonut As noted when your draft was declined, the sources do not indicate how this band meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Spotify isn't an indication of notability because there is no fact checking, not sure about BandCamp (but in your article I don't see this), and a press release is not independent of the subject. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Nwebste4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:NitroBall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am attempting to publish an article about the sport NitroBall and have no relation to any person or company associated with this sport but it appears as if my draft was rejected because reviewers believed that I was affiliated with it. What can I do to show that I have nothing to gain from this article being published or that I am not attempting to advertise? Nwebste4 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nwebste4 The reviewer might have suspected you have a conflict of interest because you only offered two sources and stated that you wanted to "initiate it and "get the ball rolling"", which sounds to others like you are here to promote the sport. Two sources is not enough; you need to have multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the sport in order to show that it meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability. If there are no other sources, it would not merit an article at this time. You cannot use Wikipedia to spread the word about this sport; independent sources must take note of it and write about it. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Thank you for your input. I'll work on changing the language of the article to be appropriately neutral. If there are any other suggestions for improvement, please let me know.

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

George Genovezos (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

George Genovezos, articles must be written in a neutral tone and provide sufficient sources that qualify the source to be in Wikipedia under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Currently, your article does neither of these. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello, Can you please elaborate on the reason for rejecting this article? Thank you.

WeeRedLass (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

WeeRedLass, The page just looks like an advertisement for the dance group. I would recommend reviewing the links provided in the decline message. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Dora's ice lolly (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Treat people with kindness (slogan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello

I have moved my draft article to Harry Styles' main article as advised by the Wikipedia reviewer, under the heading Treat People with Kindness.

Now there are a couple of things I did not manage to do (please reply in simple language as I find all Wiki instructions a nightmare to understand):

1) My external links don't look right in Read mode, for example link to the music video for the song Treat People with Kindness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi2Gy7DG75g&list=OLAK5uy_l-oeXy89ZqIF0Dw3adjIVcpTKpj_diYNY&index=12&t=0s%2F

2) We now need to have a desambiguation page for Treat People with Kindness. It is both a song and a slogan. Please can you show me how to do it. Thank you.

Dora's ice lolly (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dora's ice lolly, great job on moving the article. What do you think looks wrong about the link? That is generally what external links look like. Generally though, having external links in the article is discouraged so I'd recommend you remove them. I'm hesitant to make a disambiguation page though because typically disambiguation pages are for more than three topics. I'm going to put a hatnote (tiny text that tells people there is another topic with the same name) on the section in case people get confused. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Nesherin (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nescher & Nesher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've been working on this page for a while and I dont quite understand why it is not accepted. This page is about a theatre group that doesn't exist anymore and that should be indicated in Wikipedia for historical perpose. There is no publicity intent and no selfpromotion, rather it is an archive of past work of a theatre group that was active especiually in the last century. Why is it so diffiult to submit this page? Please advise!

thanks, Nesherin Nesherin (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nesherin, if you aren't associated with the article, then is there a reason that your username is the same as the article's title (or similar)? The article just lists various accomplishments. This makes the article read like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles should give a summary in prose of the subject from reliable sources, but yours currently effectively just lists accomplishments. Your article has been rejected, which means that unfortunately no further action can be taken on it (i.e. it won't be reconsidered). Sam-2727 (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Joshua Beschutzer (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Company C, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Joshua Beschutzer, Do you have a question? Sulfurboy (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sir (or Ma'am, as the case may be)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Company_C,_6th_Florida_Infantry_Regiment

Submission declined on 30 March 2020 by DGG (talk).

1. "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

I respectfully counter that the 15 sources from which the article was created are in fact "published" and "reliable".

2. "Comment: There is no reason to think that this particlar company of the regiment is notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)"

I respectfully respond that the comment is subjective. I have the honor to have had four "company" articles previously accepted; specifically,

Company K, 7th Florida Infantry Regiment Company A, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment Company B, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment Company H, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment

I very greatly desire to understand how this particular company fo the regiment ("Company C, 6th Florida Infantry Regiment"), is any less notable, or its references any less acceptable, than was the case in each of the four previously published articles.

Very respectfully, Mathew "J" Sterman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Beschutzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Beschutzer (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Joshua Beschutzer, there are so many sources here that it's hard to go sift through all of them. Could you list maybe three or four sources you think satisfy the notability guidelines. That is they are independent, reliable, and mention the subject significantly? This would help me in determining if the subject was actually notable. Also, notability might be up to debate, but it isn't really a "subjective" concept. Wikipedia has strict guidelines (as outlined in the comments in the article) for what is notable and what isn't. It may very well be that other regiments are notable but this one isn't. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Sam-2727. Per your request -

United States War Department. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.

Robertson, Fred L. (Compiler) (1903). Soldiers of Florida in the Seminole, Civil and Spanish-American Wars. Democrat Book and Job Print, Live Oak, Florida.

Hartman, David W. (1995). Biographical Rosters of Florida’s Confederate and Union Soldiers, 1861-1865: (Volume 2; 5th Florida Infantry – 8th Florida Infantry). Broadfoot Publishing Company, Wilmington, North Carolina. ISBN 1568372884. Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

What do these sources discuss? Do they have in-depth content about the company? Not the individual persons, but the company itself. And not the sort of directory entries or standard records or forms, but actual written description, history, etc? The titles of the books suggest these are just archives or records, but do they have any descriptive material? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Joshua Beschutzer, I've sifted through your sources. The first one seems to be a collection of primary sources, which wouldn't qualify it to support the notability guidelines. Also, maybe I'm searching the wrong terms, but I can't find the actual regiment mentioned in it. Your second source seems to be more or less an indiscriminate listing of names of regiments. While it does establish the notability of the entire infantry division, it doesn't establish notability of this specific company. The third source isn't public domain yet, so I can't look inside it, but based off of the name of the book, seems as if it would be similar to the second source. Do correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption though. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sam-2727, The "Official Records" are a 128-volume compendium of official correspondence, reports, &c. penned by various cabinet officials, general- and field grade officers of both US & CS armies (and navies). The 6th Florida is mentioned numerous times in specific actions (e.g., Chickamauga and Missionary Ridge). At the company level, there is only one specific mention that I have located, and that is for the "honor roll" subsequent to Chickamauga.

"Soldiers of Florida" was published in 1903. "Unit" histories are rather sparse (if any); however, each regiment has listings for both "Field & Staff", as well as company rosters identifying men enrolled. There is little (if any) information documented aside from date/rank in, date rank out...and even that is "sketchy".

"Biographical Rosters" was published in 1995 (I am very fortunate to own the complete 6-volume set). It is somewhat more informative, in that i draws upon information obtained from NARA Compiled military service records, and occasionally whether a pension was warded.

As that may be, my underlying and primary question remains; spec., why is this "company" article found wanting for both references and..."notability", when such was not the case for the previously submitted and accepted four company articles?

Very Respectfully, Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Joshua Beschutzer to be frank it may be because the editors reviewing it saw that there were quite a bit of citations and didn't choose to go any more in depth into the actual quality of the citations. Mistakes do happen at Articles for Creation. The "official records," even if it does mention the company, wouldn't be notable as it is a primary source and doesn't have any sort of fact checking process. The "Biographical Rosters" still seems to just be a list of people in the regiment and nothing beyond that sort of trivial coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sam-2727, I have added two more references; spec.,

National Archives and Records Service (1957). Microcopy No. 225: Index to Compiled Service Records of Confederate Soldiers Who Served in Organizations from the State of Florida. General Services Administration, Washington, D.C., and

National Archives and Records Service. Microcopy No. 653: 1860 Federal Population Census – Part 4.

I have also provided each member's entry with at least two (and as many as five) references from which his content was derived.

It is my intention to resubmit the article as above revised; should it be again be declined, I will remove it.

Thank you for your attention, and your patience, both of which are very greatly appreciated. Joshua Beschutzer (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Hotstar90 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hotstar90 (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hotstar90: Do you have a question? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Budoshin Jujitsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Exiledstranger (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Sir,Each every line has its reliable source please check it and then decline it.Thank youReply

Declined 6 times and now rejected, probably time to give up? Theroadislong (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Mlo17 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Martin Janecký (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I would like to ask you for more details on the citation issue in my article. I tried to read your suggested materials for writing Wikipedia articles but I am not sure if I understand what is the real problem in my specific article. Do you need more citations for the "About" section? Or is that I should not cite as much in the "Artwork" section and rather rewrite it? I thought as it is a living person that you require more specific citations.

I would really appreciate if you could be more specific and maybe give example rather than generally say that it doesn't meet Wikipedia citation requirements. I would really like to write it right. Thank you very much for your kind help. Michaela

Mlo17 (talk) 14:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Budoshin Jujitsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Exiledstranger (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Sir,Now check the draft and tell me.Reply

Ref bombing is not helpful; budoshin.com is a primary source, you cannot use Wikipedia articles as a source, Amazon, eBay, Yelp, guidestar , videos and Pinterest are not reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

on 29 March 2020 I had created page for an Organization, But after the review it got rejected and I am unable to follow the reviews made. So, I seek help how may I edit the page so that it can be published.

नलिनी मिश्रा (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

नलिनी मिश्रा, your submission hasn't been rejected yet so once you make the requested changes (that is, adding reliable sources and cleaning up the language of the article so it doesn't read like an advertisement), you can resubmit it by pressing the blue "resubmit" button. You can still edit the article as usual by clicking "edit source" at the top of the article (next to "view history"). Let me know if this isn't helping. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Budoshin Jujitsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Exiledstranger (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Sir remove the things that are not reliable.pleaseReply

Exiledstranger, we aren't going to write the article for you. For sources, it's hard to make a determination of what is reliable vs. not independent of the source, and since you have so many sources, I suspect I'd have to remove quite a bit of them to remove all unreliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Thson10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Luke Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - had my article declined because of lack of significant coverage. Could you advice what kind of thing I'd need to include?

Thanks

Thson10 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Thson10, significant coverage means that sources should meet the notability guidelines. That is, there should be multiple sources (so at least three) that are independent of the subject and reliable, as well as covering the subject of the article non-trivially. Usually, BBC is a reliable source, but in this case it isn't independent of the subject (since he presents for BBC), so that doesn't count as reliable. For starters, I would look for news coverage. Not by the BBC, but by other sources independent of this person. Another place you might find significant mentions is in reviews of the shows that he does. Let me know if you're still stuck when you give looking for these types of sources a shot (although that might mean unfortunately this person isn't notable). Sam-2727 (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Commercialspaceflightfederation (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hi, my page was rejected based on sources. This is a page being created for the individual in question. All the sources that were used are pretty much the only written pieces on him. How do I make it so we can publish this page? Commercialspaceflightfederation (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Commercialspaceflightfederation, you have been blocked as it is suspected you aren't disclosing that you are being paid to edit. Please respond to this inquiry on your talk page using the isntructions given there. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Bokhan.evgeniy (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Dear Wikipedia support team, please advise I made all changes for my new article, previously was a problem with reference links. Please tell me if there is something that I need to change. Thank you Bokhan.evgeniy (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Exiledstranger (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Budoshin Jujitsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Exiledstranger (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Exiledstranger, As already pointed out to you, the article has been rejected (after 6 declines) and will not be considered further. Repeatedly posting questions here isn't going to change that. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sir these all refereces have Information about Budoshin Jujitsu so please check.

Exiledstranger, information on the subject is not enough. The sources must also be independent of the subject of the article and have a reputation for being reliable sources (that is, some kind of fact checking process). Sam-2727 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Mrcola1337 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:NMC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did my Draft:NMC get denied? NMC has also a German Wikipedia-Page and is one of Belgium's leading foam company Thank you!

Mrcola1337 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mrcola1337, Per the decline message. You need to review WP:NCORP and pass those guidelines. As it stands the page does not come close to showing the required WP:SIGCOV needed to prove notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Mrcola1337 Please note that each language version of Wikipedia is its own independent project, with their own policies and editors. What is acceptable on one isn't necessarily acceptable on another) 331dot (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I have added some more references but I don’t want to add TOO MANY because it’s just unnecessary. --Mrcola1337 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• 2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:A84A:1BA4:ECA0:4D1B (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Bwncath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2A00:23C5:FA8C:D400:A84A:1BA4:ECA0:4D1B (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Olforlife (talk · contribs) ^(TB)

Hello, I am interested in learning why my article was declined submission for review. Once I know then I can fix it.

Thanks Olforlife (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Olforlife The reason was given in the decline message you received, at the top of the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I read the message at the top previously. It is very vague. I read the articles linked there as well. I'm not sure why my article was declined for lack of notability. Was it not long enough? Were there not enough sources? Does it need more history about the park? Or more information about the facilities? Should the topic be integrated into the page on Springfield, TN rather than have it's own page? Or should this page be expanded to cover all the parks in Springfield, TN? There are several which are listed in the Wikipedia page for Springfield, TN. Since this is my first article, some specificity about my page in particular would be helpful.

Thanks