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

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

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=DaBaby&lang=en&q=Draft:Ebony_Reed Mollystarkdean (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Lower Sorbian grammar in 1650 ;)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can this draft still be submitted as a Stub?

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

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=DaBaby&lang=en&q=List_of_fellows_of_the_American_Physical_Society_(1921%E2%80%931971)#1959

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=DaBaby&lang=en&q=Willie_Hobbs_Moore

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

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

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

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

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

@Philscijazz: no worries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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