• 112.203.134.153 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Ballad of Margo and Dread (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why did you delete it! The information is correct, and the sources ARE correct! 112.203.134.153 (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is here Draft:Ballad of Margo and Dread. Theroadislong (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know: Fandom, like other wikis, is a type of user-generated content, and thus is not a reliable source or useful for establishing notability. C F A 💬 05:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• AI Thabiso (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Shooting Stars Football Club - Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Show notable external links for my article AI Thabiso (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AI Thabiso With respect, no. Please see WP:BURDEN. If you want it accepted, you do the work. If it passes our criteria it will be accepted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AI Thabiso (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• VovanAZAZ (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Vincent Leygonie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The submission of the draft was declined. But this sportperson took part in the Olympics, had an achievement of being the first African to do so, and the draft has an independent reference confirming this (SA Sports Press) VovanAZAZ (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merely appearing in the Olympics is no longer sufficient to be notable as Wikipedia defines notability for people. It was at one point, but is no longer. WP:NSPORT is now just a list of things likely to get a person significant coverage in independent sources. Leygonie must meet the same guidelines as any other person- there must be significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. If his notability is being the first African to participate in a particular event, you must summarize independent reliable sources that discuss this aspect of him beyond just saying it occurred. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 45.117.215.79 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:SkyJumper Trampoline Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help in getting the page approved, I would need detailed help in getting this approved 45.117.215.79 (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. If you have an account, log in when posting. What specific help are you seeking? The reviewers left detailed messages, please see these, and the policies linked to therein carefully. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1967user (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Akira Sawa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to create a Wikipedia page for Akira Sawa several times, but it was always rejected.

A few times it was a problem of notability.

So, on August 4, I added a page that mentioned his membership in the AAP and his election as a Fellow of the AAAS, which are proof that he is recognized as an excellent scientist in the academic community and his patents. Still, it was rejected because it was considered to be advertisement-like.

The references for his membership in the AAP and his election as a Fellow of the AAAS are the websites of the AAP and the AAAS, which I consider to be reliable sources.

I also got some information about Akira Sawa from the official website of Johns Hopkins University.

All the science papers are those in which Akira Sawa was involved, but they were published in top journals such as Science and Nature, which I think are also reliable publication sources.

I gathered information and wrote it because I thought he should be listed on Wikipedia, but honestly, I don't know what to change and how to change it further.

Please advise if there is any information I should reduce since it seems like an advertisement. Thank you. 1967user (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is still lacking any reliable, independent, secondary sources. Theroadislong (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Prince kumar 2.0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Sheela Pandit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

what is need for creat article of sheela pandit prajapati Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPOLITICIAN for the criteria. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prince kumar 2.0 this is not happening, and you shouldn't keep creating new accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

any othet options Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the option of dropping it...? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can i know what is comes issue in this draft. Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This won't be published, because

a) the draft doesn't provide the slightest evidence of notability of any kind;

b) this has been created so many times that the whole issue has become tendentious; and

c) blocked users aren't allowed to edit anyway.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to unblock can you help me please Prince kumar 2.0 (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed blocked, then you must not edit English Wikipedia, under any user account or none until you have had the block lifted. See Guide to appealing blocks. ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KTnow (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chris Stark (climate expert) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I tried to create a page for the UK government's new Net Zero czar, appointed relatively recently. My draft was rejected. I work in public policy myself, it feels like a no-brainer to me that Chris Stark should have an article about him on Wikipedia (even prior to his recent appointment). There are many people less high-profile who have a dedicated article.

So I'm trying to ascertain:

i) Is my measure of notability off target? In which case, while I may not agree in principle, I'll just abandon the article. Or

ii) Is it an issue with referencing? I felt the referencing I provided was pretty decent, with a number of credible sources, but would appreciate a steer if not. Is it, for example, that sources like the Carbon Trust and the Climate Change Committee – while credible – are too close to the individual? Is it that sources like Business Green and renewable Energy Magazine – while reasonably well regarded in the industry – are too niche to be deemed credible on Wikipedia?

Any steer would be welcome. Thanks in advance! :-)

@KTnow: the problem is that half your sources are primary, the other half are appointment news (ie. routine business reporting), none of which contributes towards notability. The general notability guideline WP:GNG requires significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This helps a lot @DoubleGrazing, thank you. Now I have a sense of what is missing. So if I understand correctly, Carbon Trust and the Climate Change Committee here are considered primary sources. I wasn't aware that appointment news didn't count towards notability. Does that include a source like The Guardian (surely an appointment reported in The Guardian would contribute towards notability?). Are you able to point me to where appointment news is mentioned, I wouldn't mind reading the exact guidance for myself. Thank you, appreciate it! KTnow (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KTnow: just to say that this draft has now been accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DoubleGrazing! KTnow (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Ninjaboy999096 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:This page only has 2 links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this is not a test it is just a silly thing and it also probably wont be a forgotten one because there is no similar pages to this Ninjaboy999096 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninjaboy999096: Is there something specific you need help with? C F A 💬 03:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninjaboy999096: Draftspace is not for unserious junk that would never be an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rare Crane (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ronnie Haran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding notability, in the category of entertainers, it says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" -- what qualifies as significant here? Haran seems to have taken named roles with dialogue in multiple TV shows and also had a (non-starring) role in a feature film. Does "significant" imply main character or recurring character versus just single-episode appearances?

I can work on finding better sources for the article overall. Rare Crane (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rare Crane: I don't know if there is a straightforward 'right' answer to this. I'd say it should be either a leading role, or at least one of the more important supporting ones; not just bit part or extra. One way I usually look at this is by going through the actor's filmography of notable works and seeing whether and how they're described in them. I just had a look, and the only one in Haran's filmography where the Wikipedia article even mentions here is Come September. To me that suggests that the WP:NACTOR guideline isn't satisfied. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! I will see if I can find some sources that clear up the extent of her roles (extra v lead etc) and edit/resubmit the article draft if I find anything. I did try to find such sources, but the acting seems concentrated in the 60s, and there's not much I can find online! Rare Crane (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a youtube video of one of the episodes she appears in! (I don't believe it's a copyright violation because it was uploaded by the official YouTube Movies and TV account). She has a significant speaking part and is a rival love interest -- she is in a 4 minute scene and two two minute scenes. I would categorize it as supporting for the episode, and not a bit part. I assume that just a single episode with substantial lines is still not sufficient.

Would all her performances (about ten listed on imdb) have to be similarly substantial, or would it be sufficient to have three or five, etc? Or is it still harder to quantify than that? Rare Crane (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]