• TonyGadreal (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Tony Gadreel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am a New article creator TonyGadreal (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyGadreal: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. You should not be writing about yourself at all, see WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I partially copy text from freely licensed material, such as works by the Government of India (and licensed under GODL) to create articles?

I am asking specifically about text. @CharlieMehta had mentioned that there is a possibility that this is allowed only for images & diagrams. Is it true? Skratata69 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skratata69: this isn't really the place to ask about copyright, but in basic terms, if by "freely licensed" you mean material in the public domain, then as long as there is evidence of this status, and you're clearly citing the source, and the copying is otherwise appropriate, then you can use such material. See WP:Public domain for more info on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skratata69 However, it is a general truth that text from external sources is unlikely to be of the style or quality required by Wikipedia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree, I was not blindly copy pasting it. I took a lot of time and wrote content and added comparisions on my own, since it was my first article. It got a ~50% overlap with the freely licensed content so my draft article was declined. Skratata69 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skratata69 If the location of the freely licenced content contains a compatible licence you will not have this problem again. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for all sorts of details to help you. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CharlieMehta Please enter this discussion, there appears to be unfinished work here 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The website is of the Reserve Bank of India, a body of the Government of India. The government has licensed all non-sensitive content automatically under a free license as seen here, so there is no need for an explicit license on every site.

[1](page 5 here) Skratata69 (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Silver Statue Valmiki Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know how to add references and What should I do to improve it. Please tell me🙏🏻 2409:40D1:101C:B19F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, you have correctly added references, so you know how to do that in theory. It's just that you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, you need to cite the sources where you got all this information from. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Panchayet (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:TCG CREST (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please provide feedback on how to improve this? Panchayet (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panchayet: the draft is completely unreferenced, with zero evidence of notability, and as such is basically just the subject telling the world about itself, which makes it inherently promotional. This is why it is pending speedy deletion.

What is your relationship with this institute? I've posted a conflict-of-interest query on your talk page, please read and respond to it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Venetian Heritage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article was declined for insufficient citation. Would it be possible to see what claims need the addition of a citation or better sources. The subject of the article means that scholarly sources are not particularly available. Instead, most information is derived from the websites of galleries which I would see as being fairly accurate when discussing thier own galleries. The range of citations used in inline with pages on similar topics. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the references are not seperated from the last section (they are just at the bottom of the article without a seperate subheading). Could this be part of the problem? Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia: no, that's not the problem; that's easily fixed.

It's also not about insufficient citations. That point was added just as a comment.

The reason for declining is that the sources do not demonstrate notability. Please click on each of the links in the decline notice to see what sort of sources we require. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia We (primarily) don't want to know what associated galleries say about this organization, we want to know what independent reliable sources say about this organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. As the reviewer notes, much of the draft is unsourced(especially the history section)

Are you associated with this organization? 331dot (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So with regards to notability adding more sources such as news articles or books referencing the work of Venetian Heritage would fix that. There are existing articles on similar organizations some of similar notability. No I am not directly affiliated witht the organization but am from Venice (and am interested in its history) so am well aquianted with their work, history and activities. Lorenzo Chiari-Gaggia (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - as long as the articles and books weren't written, published, or commissioned, by VH or anybody it works with.

As for other articles: we have many many seriously flawed articles, which nobody has got around to doing anything about. If you want to compare an existing article, make sure it is a Good Article or a Featured Article. See Other stuff exists . ColinFine (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• EbrietanPhasmid (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hare (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and am having trouble creating an article that passes review. This article was declined on the grounds that it does not fit the criteria for a wikipedia article due to lack of depth/reliable sources. I was wondering what advice you could give me when it comes to improving this article?

My digging only yielded two secondary sources which I have made use of. The remainder of my article utilises primary sources (the language's creators).

How can I make this article fit for the wiki?

-EbrietanPhasmid (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EbrietanPhasmid: by finding, and citing, 3+ sources that meet the WP:GNG standard for notability. If you cannot find such sources, then the subject is probably not notable enough, and the draft cannot be accepted. It's all about the sources, no amount of editing will magic notability out of thin air. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) 11:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Janep1814 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Adrienne Cullen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was rejected and in the accompanying explanation, it states that the copyright violation that caused it to be rejected has been removed. Does this mean that I can re-submit it and that it will be re-assessed or do I have to do something else first? I've made no edits to the draft myself. Thanks Janep1814 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janep1814 Fixed your link, it lacked the "Draft:" portion. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning in the draft process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok.Thanks for the clarification. Does this mean I can resubmit without making any other changes (as the copyright violation has been cleared)? Janep1814 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you may. On the surface it looks remarkably good (and well-sourced) for a new editor's first attempt. I haven't looked in any depth, though. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll resubmit. Janep1814 (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ironland (Micronation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am making my first article about a micronation that is named Ironland. It was established on 26 Jun 2024. I am new to making articles so that's the reason I need the advice. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysian guy who likes politics I like _magnify, but this micronation is not yet a notable topic for Wikipedia. The draft has therefore been rejected and will not be considered further for the time being. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysian guy who likes politics: please see Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you can point to at least three independent, reliably published, articles or books which talk in some depth about your micronation, then it might be worth considering it as a possible topic for a Wikipedia article. Until then, no. ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KnotWhen52 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mehdi Kordi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My Article is about a national sports coach who is also a published sports scientist - I am aware that the article fails due to notability. Can you advise on what steps I should take to rectify? For example, should I make the article shorter, should I remove some citations and references that aren't relevant? Do I not have enough? I've tried to be as detailed as possible, so any guidance would be helpful. KnotWhen52 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KnotWhen52: as the draft has been declined for lack of notability, that is what you should address. Find sources that satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ACADEMIC notability guideline. Other edits may be useful also, but they won't help you get around the notability problem. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Ironland (Micronation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article was considered to be deleted because it states that it's just a "hoax" rather than an factual article. I am requesting assistance because this is the first time I am establishing an article. It took two days for me to submit this article. Malaysian guy who likes politics (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaysian guy who likes politics: this draft has been deleted. Please don't recreate it.

And please don't start a new thread with each comment. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pratap555 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Last Drop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Why the article declined Pratap Keshari Das (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was stated by the reviewer at the top of your draft. Please read it, and the policies linked therein, carefully. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:József Móczár (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Béla Sipos, who has edited the article until now, does not understand the information the Auric reviewer provided. József Móczár wrote the request for help, as Béla Sipos gave up further editing, citing insufficient programming knowledge. After several years of corrections, please finish the editing and publish the Wikipedia article. 2A02:AB88:8502:1000:986F:28B3:A16A:3E4 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can resubmit it for review by clicking the blue "Resubmit" button at the bottom of the decline notice. It won't be accepted unless it is written in the neutral point of view, which it is not right now. Articles are not supposed to promote the subject. Since it is a biography of a living person, all statements must be supported by inline citations to reliable sources. If you have a conflict of interest with the subject, you must also disclose that before editing it. C F A 💬 16:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would like to know how/why more references are not reliable Lucasirby (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucasirby: We don't cite Liquipedia (no editorial oversight) or the subject's own website (connexion to subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarkin1573 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:P.C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science at Lehigh University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am new to wikipedia, and it is unclear to me how the page I have created in materially different from many many other university pages on wikipedia, including these:

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Human cloning&lang=en&q=Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Human cloning&lang=en&q=University_of_Pennsylvania_School_of_Engineering_and_Applied_Science https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Human cloning&lang=en&q=Purdue_University_College_of_Engineering

Clarkin1573 (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarkin1573: You cannot use the presence, absence, or condition of tangentially-related articles to argue for your own. And unlike the other three articles, this lacks usable sources and is written primarily to promote the college. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wyneep (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Amadea Angela Aquino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Wikipedia Help Desk, I just resubmitted this post for review last week and would like to know if I am going to get assigned the same reviewer for my submission that I had the first time around. If so, is there a timeline I should follow for when the Wikipedia draft will be reviewed? If not, is there a way of following up with someone at Wikipedia to get a better sense of what to expect? Thank you. Wyneep (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "assigns" reviewers at all, ever. Reviewers look through the list of drafts awaiting review, and choose which they wish to pick up, and which order to deal with them. I suspect that some reviewers, sometimes, look at the oldest waiting drafts and pick them up even when they don't really want to (but I'm not a reviewer, so I'm only guessing that). ColinFine (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all reviewers find drafts the same way. Some look at drafts relating to their specific interests, some go by date, some go alphabetically, and some choose them randomly (which is what I do). Unfortunately, the Articles for Creation system is very backlogged right now (there is almost always around 3000 drafts submitted for review at any given time!). You shouldn't have to wait any longer than 3 months for a review. C F A 💬 21:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Heikdong (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Dong Suk-Kee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page was deleted and restored. Submission was declined on 21 October 2023 by Rich Smith (talk). He stated that: "This submission has now been cleaned of the above-noted copyright violation and its history redacted by an administrator to remove the infringement. If re-submitted (and subsequent additions do not reintroduce copyright problems), the content may be assessed on other grounds."

I have resubmitted the draft with the corrections and removal of infringements. What's the next step? I'm new to Wikipedia and have taken over this page from previous person who is no longer working on this page.

Thank you, HK Dong Heikdong (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing you need do other than wait.

However, if you want to increase the chances of a reviewer accepting your draft, you will carefully read what we mean by a reliable source, and get rid of all the obviously unreliable ones you have cited at present. We do not accept social media, blog posts, and we certainly don't accept articles from random weirdly-named sites that all have exactly the same appearance and the same "about us".

Obviously, when you get rid of a source, you get rid of all information which is cited to that source - unless you can find a reliable source which provides the same information.

When you say you "have taken over this page from previous person", what is your relationship to that previous person, and to Dong? If you are in any way employed by or on behalf of Dong or his church, you must formally declare your status as a paid editor. ColinFine (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Elithton (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Green Gold Dex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How long do I have to edit the text?What content is prohibited, and what should I avoid using in the text? Elithton (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions may be carried out at any time as long as an admin feels the criteria is met- I believe that's the case, so I deleted it. I would suggest that if you have independent reliable sources that give this game significant coverage, that you start fresh. I would advise you that writing a new article is the most difficult task to attempt on Wikipedia, and it is a good idea to first get experience under your belt by editing existing articles, and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mdahmke (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Computalker CT-1 Speech Synthesizer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've added a couple of references... I wrote much of the original material about the Computalker for BYTE and onComputing back in the late 70s and developed applications for the computalker. Unfortunately there are very few other independent sources. Mdahmke (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are very few other independent sources, then by definition, this system does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, and no article is possible. ColinFine (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Linwoods96 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Klubjumpers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told I did not have enough reliable sources for verification. I included a reference section which included at least two articles, plus discogs to verify music Klubjumpers worked on. Do I need another article to verify their notoriety? Also, I am not sure how to include the links within the body of the article. I need help putting the citations in. Please help. Linwoods96 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Linwoods96: We can't use Discogs (no editorial oversight). All of your references need to be in-line, citing specific claims, rather than just slapped on the end of the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brandonweiss8 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Matt Levine (Sports Pioneer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I submitted the draft with many references as noted at the bottom. Not sure what the issue is here. Thanks Brandonweiss8 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brandonweiss8. The ADDITIONAL REFERENCES section seems redundant- surely these should all be converted to in-line citations to support material in the body of the draft. Otherwise, what is their purpose? Qcne (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes I did just that when re-submitting 4.7.17.138 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you have (and please remember to log in while replying). For example, the Silicon Valley Business Journal reference has no accompanying in-line citation, and doesn't appear in the References section. Qcne (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandonweiss8, please read WP:CIRCULAR. You cannot use Wikipedia articles as references. Cullen328 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]