July 3[edit]

• Chanan12 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Chanan12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am seeking guidance to ensure that the draft article for Chanan Zevin meets Wikipedia's notability criteria and formatting standards before submission for review. Chanan12 (talk) 08:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanan12 why are you referring to yourself in third person? The draft is a promotional autobiography and will be deleted soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanan12: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. You have submitted User:Chanan12/sandbox, and will get an assessment when a reviewer picks it up.

Also noting here that Draft:Chanan Zevin was recently rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Never mind, that was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. And the draft has been put forward for speedy deletion.

Also, I've deleted your duplicate thread, you only need to ask your question once. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RoobaG (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Talent Quest for India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to create an article about Talent Quest for India which is actively engaged in social works. Can you please assist how can I improve this article? RoobaG (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoobaG: as per the decline notice, you need to demonstrate notability according to the WP:ORG guideline, and you need to write in a neutral, non-promotional manner, supported by reliable and independent sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clare Nassanga (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nicholas Omonuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I was kindly requesting for advice regarding the draft article Nicholas Omonuk. Clare Nassanga (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: you need to specify what advice you want. That said, this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request for assistance on how i can identify the references that have notability about the subject. Clare Nassanga (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: please don't open a new thread with every comment, just add to your previous one. In any case, you're just repeating your earlier question. Did you not read my reply? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should i restart the whole process again since it has been rejected. What is the step forward. Clare Nassanga (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare Nassanga: no, rejection means the end of the road. If evidence of notability comes to light later which wasn't considered as part of these reviews, you may be able to appeal the rejection by approaching the rejecting reviewer directly, but that evidence does need to be substantially stronger than what is there now. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

What more can i do if my article is rejected? Simon Tuliameni (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Tuliameni: nothing, that's it, the end of the road. You may want to try one of the many blogging or social media platforms out there instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

add some refrence and reliable source to your article. Kunalmasson (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Kunalmasson's reply is not very helpful. Since your draft has been rejected, not just declined, merely adding sources will not do. You would need to apply to the rejecting reviewer, explaining just what material you have found which will establish that your subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for Notability. ColinFine (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kunalmasson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shri Dharm Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subject: Request for Analysis and Improvement Suggestions for Wikipedia Draft on Shri Dharm Paul

Dear Wikipedia Help Team,

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Massson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson

Kunalmasson (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunalmasson: we don't provide on-demand reviews here at the help desk. You have resubmitted the draft, so it will be assessed when a reviewer comes along to take a look.

Sources don't have to be online, as long as they are of sufficient quality in terms of reliability etc. If citing offline sources, you need to provide complete bibliographical information so that the source can be reliably identified for verification; see WP:OFFLINE for advice.

Sources also don't have to be in English, just so you're aware. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DerekMuttley (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Wilson's Tales of the Borders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Difficulty understanding the 'Notability Guideline' in reference to this draft page.

I'm returning to this draft, and hope to resolve any queries this time around. Help me to understand why there should be an entry for, say LJ Ross, a contemporary fiction writer, yet this page dealing with the eponymous 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' is being refused. The work is referenced from within Wikipedia, from pages referring to the different authors involved. Several existing pages all point to 'Wilsons Tales of the Borders' as being the medium for their work. The publication remained in print for over a hundred (100 years) from 1834 to 1963, and was published by a number of organisations, including the publishing arm of Sir Walter Scott. It differs from the discussion of the originator, Wilson, in that it incorporated work by other authors, and includes material of verifiable veracity, disguised within the 'fictional' overall guideline.

My difficulty seems to be that by the time of the digital age, it was so pervasive that it was/is no longer talked about, though copies are to be found in public libraries and repositories across the UK.

I appreciate that some of the discussion could be on the page related to Wilson, but that would avoid, or duplicate, material on the other author's pages.

I mentioned a contemporary author above, the page is a list of her published work, and referenced to contemporary reviews. Does this cloud of puffery indicate 'notability?' A phenomenon commencing in 1834 predates there being such material that can form 'references' of this type. References to the recently published Autobiography, and recent republications have been given. The 'peak' of discussion about the publication I would guess to be in the late 1830's.

How do I square this circle to the satisfaction of the 'bot' reviewing the submission?

Thanks,

DerekMuttley (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there are no "bots" involved in reviews, we are ALL human beings. Theroadislong (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DerekMuttley: if you're calling me a 'bot', then I assume I shouldn't bother even trying to answer this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as above - So sorry to have offended, It's a real delight to talk to real people, and people who care about these things.

I've been involved in making 'real' automated responses since back in the last century, so I know how not intelligent the current fashion for planet eating algorithms are.

But then, if you were a bot, that's just the kind of thing you'd say.

Let's not go there. I'm merely a grasshopper, seeking for answers from the Masters.. DerekMuttley (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DerekMuttley: okay, well, I shall leave it for you to work out whether or not I am a bot, and will meanwhile try to explain why I declined this draft.

If I've interpreted the sources correctly, all but two of them are referencing the book itself, and the subject cannot obviously make itself notable. The other two sources, nos. 4 and 8, seem to reference other books, but of these, I can't find information on the former (I tried a few ways of searching for the ISBN, but they all returned errors), and whatever the latter is, it alone isn't enough to establish notability, especially as it appears to be somewhat close to the subject.

Notability for books is established either by sources that satisfy the general notability guideline WP:GNG, or by citing reliable evidence that show the book meeting one or more of the five criteria enumerated in the WP:BOOKCRIT section of the special WP:NBOOK guideline. (My hunch, FWIW, is that this latter guideline, NBOOK, is your better bet of the two, given what you say about the book being old, and all that.) But absent sufficient sources or other evidence to satisfying either guideline, I had no option but to decline the draft.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for LJ Ross: that article has 29 citations, many of which appear (on a quick look) to be both reliable sources and wholly independent of Ross. Also see other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kunalmasson (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shri Dharm Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hope this email finds you well. My name is Kunal Masson, and I am working on creating a Wikipedia article about Shri Dharm Paul. He was a notable figure who passed away in 1990, and unfortunately, there is limited information and references about him available on the internet.

I have drafted an article based on the available information, but I am seeking your assistance to review the draft and provide feedback on any mistakes or areas that need improvement. As I aim to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, your expert advice will be invaluable.

Given the scarcity of online references, I have relied on printed materials and personal accounts to compile the draft. I understand the importance of verifiability and reliable sources on Wikipedia and would appreciate any suggestions on how to better source the information or improve the article's credibility.

Please find the draft attached to this email for your review.

Thank you very much for your time and assistance. I look forward to your feedback and suggestions.

Best regards,

Kunal Masson Kunalmasson (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kunalmasson: you posted this same question not even 20 minutes ago. Please read my reply to that, rather than posting the same thing again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Regeneisen (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Apex Ed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I have attempted to create a Wikipedia article twice, but unfortunately, it has been declined both times. This is my first experience with creating an article, and I am making every effort to comply with Wikipedia's standards.

Before I proceed with editing my article again, I would greatly appreciate any guidance or advice on how to improve it so that it meets the necessary criteria for acceptance.

Thank you in advance for your help. Regeneisen (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Regeneisen: that's because the draft cites only primary sources, which cannot establish notability per WP:GNG. We need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rasilshrestha (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ram Krishna Bantawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. I did add reliable independent sources to my article. I also asked and added offline sources to my article. I have already editted the article. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have resubmitted the draft for review. Please be patient. ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gregcaires (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Skydweller Aero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

article submission.

I'm not sure what to do next. We have submitted an article about our organization. Wiki wants more reliable sources about our organization and we have provided what is available. We've even used ChatGPT to produce the article using a neutral tone and following Wiki guideline.s Gregcaires (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content is NOT suitable for Wikipedia please do NOT use ChatGPT. Theroadislong (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using ChatGPT to write your article is an almost certain way of getting it declined: see WP:LLM.

More seriously, you say you have submitted an article about "our organization". In that case, you must make a formal declaration on your user page of your status as a paid editor - this is mandatory under Wikipedia's terms of use.

I'm also concerned about your use of "we": Wikipedia accounts are personal, and may not be shared by multiple users. See shared accounts.

Finally, please note that Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the draft for deletion as blatant and irreparable advertizing/promotion. As to the promotion, I'm not sure if the LLM decided to make it sound like an investor's brochure on its own or if it's a garbage in, garbage out situation. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• CPNU (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Litowitz MFA+MA Graduate Program in Creative Writing and English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! This draft was recently denied, due to the following reason: "You need independent sources. I don't think you're likely to find many, and we don't usually have articles on individual academic programs. Better to add something about it to Northwestern University."

We are trying to make a page similar to this one: Stonecoast MFA Program in Creative Writing

The article I submitted seems to use the same types of sources and the same types of information as this Stonecoast article. Can you let me know in what way I need to change our article so that it's similar enough to Stonecoast's for approval? I've reviewed the guidelines and can't see exactly what we're missing, particularly in comparison to other similar articles.

Thank you very much! CPNU (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say "we", who is "we"? Are you a group of people? MarcGarver (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you mention, Stonecoast MFA Program in Creative Writing, is severely deficient in WP:independent sources, and may well not meet the criteria for notability: I have just tagged it as such.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of seriously sub-standard articles, mostly dating from before we became more careful about quality. (For some reason, volunteer editors don't seem very eager to spend the thousands of hours which would be required to correct this problem). We don't wish to add to this, so we apply higher standards to new articles. If you want to compare to an existing article, please choose a good article or featured article. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Himay81 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:R. v. Zameer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trying to get a better understanding for the required details to improve this draft article for submission.

The majority of the articles cited indeed cover the topic in depth and come from a variety of news sources (predominantly the national CBC News in addition to the regional CP24 and the more local Brampton Guardian). The declination suggests both that these references are not reliable sources and that the article fails to qualify for submission.

Is the declination a result of not having a significant enough degree of diversity (e.g. quantity of news agencies and/or governmental pressers) in the sources?

Is the declination a result of lacking notability? Himay81 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thira(79-80) (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Raymond Foye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

the reason why i am requesting assistance is because, the last time my submission was declined i asked if removing the citations i included that didn't provide sufficient information would get my article accepted and also how to go about removing citations, as i couldn't figure out how to do that Thira(79-80) (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thira(79-80): Removing citations wouldn't do you any good. The problem is that you have swathes of text that aren't cited what-so-ever. This is not acceptable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Matthew John Drummond (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Crying Down the Lane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’ve added more references to this Wikipedia page. Matthew John Drummond (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew John Diamond: All of which prove this show exists. You need to find sources that have discussed or reviewed this programme. Note that we do accept offline sources (since the show aired in the '60's, I would expect the most useful sources to be print sources), but they need to be cited properly:

• For magazines and newspapers, use {{cite magazine}} or {{cite news}} and provide the name of the outlet, the edition (i.e. 1 Jan 1924), the article title, the article byline, and the pages the article is on;
• For books, use {{cite book}} and provide the title, author, publisher, year of publication, pages being cited, and either the ISBN or OCLC#.

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Shriguru1008 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • User:Shriguru1008/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why our page was declined Shriguru1008 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shriguru1008: This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have zero use for content in Hindi. Try editing the Hindi-language Wikipedia instead. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lisacourtnadge (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Constance Scharff (mental health researcher) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wiki Reviewer, Thank you for taking the time to assist with my query. My draft was declined, so I'm currently editing it to improve the notability. I wanted to ask, is it possible for multiple people to edit it at once? I know others who want to write on my subject, so I'm wondering if we can collaborate, and if there's a simple way to do this. Thank you! Warm regards, Lisa Lisacourtnadge (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisacourtnadge: There is, and it's as simple as giving the collaborators a link to your draft. (Anyone can edit a draft provided they know the exact title of it or otherwise have a link to it.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the reviewer comment "you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, please remove those citations". Theroadislong (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theroadislong,

Thanks for the note! I had made the relevant changes. I wasn't sure how to reply to the user, there was no option to "reply" like there is here. However, I did try to reply, hopefully it's sufficient. Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't? There are still 14 instances of Wikipedia being used as a reference. Theroadislong (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeske,

Thank you! I will try that. Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another query - does anyone know if articles from 'Psychology Today' are considered notable? My subject has several articles published on Psychology Today, which I would like to include, but I'm not sure if it is recognised as a credible website. Thanks again! Lisacourtnadge (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisacourtnadge: I assume you mean to ask whether the publication is reliable, rather than 'notable'? There's no firm recommendation one way or the other on Psychology Today at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There are a couple of discussions at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but nothing conclusive. My understanding is that they employ pretty good fact-checking on their article content, but there is also a lot of blog and similar material which is probably less well verified, if at all. They also feature commercial content (churnalism, advertorials, paid-for directory listings, etc.), which suggests they may be less-than-picky about what gets published if the 'price is right'. In short, the publication may well be solid, but you need to evaluate the specific content individually. That's my take on it, anyway. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sod much! Lisacourtnadge (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mkabir1988 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Jaan Say Pyara Juni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I think this reviewer Saqib is acting in bad faith and turning down a submission because of his own bias. He seems to be doing that on other wikipedia pages as well if you look at his history. He says being quoted in Dawn newspaper is not a notable mention for the drama? Dawn newspaper is the most widely read newspapers in Pakistan - google it. The citations quoted in the article meet the criteria of notability. Mkabir1988 (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkabir1988: No, it's low-effort breathless-hype style sources, plus a random YouTube video from an unverified channel. You don't even cite Dawn in your draft. (I would also strongly recommend you tone down the accusations of bias.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jeske. The Dawn citation is added in now. Mkabir1988 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

i want to post this article on wikipedia , how do i do it and submit it JC haters (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but it's not a Wikipedia article; it's a rant. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]