July 8[edit]

• Mohsenmarjmand (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Hoda Hadadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

   I have cited all the authentic references just like the Persian vesion of the article. Unfortunately, the article is still being declined. I no not know what the issue is now. I would appreciate it if you helped me.

Kind Regards, Mohsenmarjmand (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsenmarjmand: have you read any of the decline notices and the accompanying comments? I'm asking because I already pointed out that the main body of the draft is entirely unreferenced, which is completely unacceptable in an article on a living person. That was two reviews ago, and I now find it's still unreferenced. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced all the items in Awards and Bibliography sections. But regarding intro and biography sections, I do not know what I should reference! Can I reference to the persian version of the article? Can you please help me in this regards?

Thanks Mohsenmarjmand (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mohsenmarjmand: this is one of the big challenges in translating (which is what I assume you have done, but don't know) content from other language versions of Wikipedia. It is up them to decide what can be accepted to their language version, but here on the English-language Wikipedia articles are subject to our policies and requirements. And in what comes to referencing and notability, our requirements are stricter than in any other language version that I'm aware of. You will therefore have to do potentially a lot of research to find sources that support the contents as we require, and ultimately to remove content that cannot be appropriately supported.

As for what needs to be supported, the simple answer is – pretty much everything. You don't need to support 'sky is blue' type statements, but anything potentially contentious (ie. where the reader might conceivably ask "where did this come from" or "how do we know that's true", let alone "I doubt that, prove it!") has to have an inline citation next to it, and the more extraordinary the statement, the more extraordinary the evidence needed to support it. Also, for privacy reasons, all personal and family details must be clearly supported, starting with the DOB. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for concise reply. I got it. I will try to reference all non-obvious content in the body. Mohsenmarjmand (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Gracewith (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Gyan C. Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have provided a lot of reliable sources, in fact, a few of them are government portals that authenticate the information provided by for the page creation of Gyan C Jain. He is a Padma Shree awardee and that should be more than enough to validate his presence in addition to that I have shared a lot more information from reliable sources, still the page is getting rejected for vague reasons. Could you please check again and help me with the same? Gracewith (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracewith: putting aside the question of whether a Padma Shri award should confer automatic notability, it seems we have two different Gyan Chand Jains both claiming to be the 2002 recipient, Draft:Gyan C. Jain and Gyan Chand Jain. Looks like among other things we need to get to the bottom of which of these is the actual recipient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I wouldn't say your sources are particularly good. You cite all sorts of stuff, from bookshops to YouTube clips to website home pages and other sources that don't really seem to support the information in this draft. That leads me to think this was most likely correctly declined. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for Gyan C Jain I have provided enough proof of him being the padma Shree Awardee in 2002 including certificates, youtube videos etc. Also, but other than being a Padma Shree, he is also a active chairman of BPB publication among other eduction institutes. Infact the youtube videos are another evidence of being felicitated by the government of India and Delhi. I have also shared an image of him receiving the Padma Shree by the president of India.

Additionally, the links of bookshops i have shared to showcase the books he has written and published. The website pages that i have shared are also to cite his position as chairman or executive member or founder at various prestigious institutes. And all the websites has his name mentioned.

What more can be added, as there is already enough documentation i have shared, but still getting rejected. Unfortunately, I don't have many media coverages. There are couple one is in print and i have share a picture and another a media coverage by Your Story where he is mentioned. Gracewith (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tjiundje (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:The Licius Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know but how? What kind of issues do I have? Tjiundje (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tjiundje: I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that you have zero independent sources discussing the topic and zero indication that they pass the criteria at WP:GNG plus having " over 2 thousand Subscribers on YouTube" is NOT an indication of notability. Theroadislong (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand that. Thank you for your feedback. Tjiundje (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Allewikiwriter (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Carlo Rino Group Berhad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article keeps getting rejected and I have put a lot of effort into researching and related all reference list and revised it multiple times, making sure it meets the 4 criteria for the sources. The last reviewer rejected my article and asked me to remove references that are not "reliable" without specifying which references are those. I have written and asked for a review and clarification yet no response for 2 weeks. Can someone assist me to improve this draft? Allewikiwriter (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allewikiwriter Note that the draft has been declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning in the draft submission process, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.

Wikipedia is not a place to just tell of the existence of a company and what it does. An article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" is that which goes beyond merely reporting the routine business activities of the company and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. The vast majority of companies do not merit Wikipedia articles, as most sources discuss their routine activities(like the release of a product, commencement of operations, financial reports, etc.)

If you work for this company, the Terms of Use require that to be declared, please see the paid editing policy, as well as conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Greenonion10 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Cincinnati Cougars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am wondering why this page keeps getting declined, and how much more information needs to be added. Greenonion10 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenonion10: it's not a question of adding more information, it's supporting the information that is there better, and also demonstrating that the subject is notable according to the general notability guideline WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage (not just passing mentions, statistics, 'profiles', routine match reporting, etc.) in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback. That's why I added a media section to mention articles, podcasts, news coverage but it still got denied. It's just confusing because sometimes I will see Wiki pages with like 2 lines of information lol Greenonion10 (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Is2024 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Zsuzsanna Ozsváth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

The reason I received for the article being rejected is that it is not supported by reliable sources.

I understand that some of the pictures were not sourced properly, however I believe that the sources I used for the article itself are reliable, as they are mainly articles from foundations (Yad Vashem and Shoah Foundation) and from an University (The University of Texas at Dallas).

Is there any area that I need to change specifically? Is2024 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Is2024: sources 1, 3 and 8 are the subject talking about their life. First-person accounts may or may not be reliable, but they can only support straightforward facts, such as date of birth etc., not entire sections as is the case here. Source 2 just supports the statements about how the Nazis treated Jews during WW2. Put those aside, and suddenly half the draft is unreferenced. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have especially strict referencing requirements, and this just needs more work on that front. That's my reading of it, anyway, after a quick scan-through. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ArborChamp (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Munson Steed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am not sure how the links provided are not acceptable. They are a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Can you please elaborate further. ArborChamp (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ArborChamp: I can't check two of the sources, as they're not available in Europe, and one source returns a 404, but the ones I did manage to see were mostly a mix of passing mentions, routine business reporting, primary sources, ones where Steed was commenting on things rather than being the subject himself, and a few pieces that looked an awful lot like churnalism. We want to see significant coverage, directly of Steed and not of his various business ventures or other initiatives, in secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject (meaning, not prompted, induced, sponsored, paid, fed information by, or otherwise 'encouraged' by Steed or his PR/comms team). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Akaayu (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Army Law College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Sir I Created draft on Army Law College but it was not accepted for article creation because of some reason. So can you please suggest were to edit I am little bit confused. Akaayu (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaayu: this draft is almost entirely supported by the organisation's own website and other primary sources, which do not establish notability per WP:ORG. The couple of secondary sources that there are, are just routine business reporting. We need to see significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and entirely independent of the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the secondary sources links in the reference tab and they are notable website. And some few things from it's own website like fee structure and other stuff. What is wrong with that you can google it also. So please help me to get article published Draft:Army Law College. Akaayu (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Akaayu Having read your response here and examined the article, but not the quality of referencing, I have left a comment on the draft itself for you 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sir I will do that Akaayu (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir I have done changes you can check it and verify the Draft:Army Law College Akaayu (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sylvan1971 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Laura Bliss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After a great deal of constructive dialog and corresponding revision, the editor with whom I have been corresponding appears to be busy elsewhere. in Sirdog's last note he continued to dispute the notability of the subject. I responded substantively, no response. I need a third party opinion as to the notability and clearance to move this into mainspace (which I prefer not to do unilaterally). Our dialog is at https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Laura Branigan - Self Control&lang=en&q=User_talk:Sylvan1971#c-Sirdog-20240531033300-Sirdog's_reply

Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971 I see this draft as a list of stuff concealed by prose. The references are WP:CITEKILL, and I feel in needs a rewrite based on the final choice of references. Citekill has to go if it is to move forward, thus I suggest you either engage in a total rewrite, or allow it to fade away. I cannot tell from the content if Bliss passes WP:BIO

To aid you, I have two things, first referencing needs:

For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

This is a prime example of WP:CITEKILL. Instead we need one excellent reference per fact asserted. If you are sure it is beneficial, two, and at an absolute maximum, three. Three is not a target, it's a limit. Aim for one. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. Please choose the very best in each case of multiple referencing for a single point and either drop or repurpose the remainder.

And second a guide in this essay, one of many on article creation. Please embrace the process within it. I suggest you treat the current draft as a learning experience, and create Draft:Laura Bliss (two), working on it quietly and diligently and not relying on anything in the prior draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the prompt response. Want to be sure you understand NONE sources cited are self published. None of the subject's work is self published. i will be review for unnecessarily duplicated citations. Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971 Any interview with the subject is a primary source, however, because it is what she says. We have no interest in what she says. We are interested in what is said about her. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971 Stories written by her are also what she says. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not, please review the extensive dialog at User talk:Sylvan1971#c-Sirdog-20240421053400-Your submission at Articles for creation: Laura Bliss (April 21) I have rewritten the article several times in response to this and other editors' comments. Thank you. Sylvan1971 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971 you also need to declare your conflict of interest. S0091 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did in February of this year. Sylvan1971 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvan1971 apologies. I do see it is clearly stated on the draft's talk page. I will add a comment to the draft so editors/reviewers know to look there. Most often it is declared on editor's User page but the talk page is acceptable as well. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• SageOst2024 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Complex Xylaria Hypoxilon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't really understand what the things I need to do are for this page? Can I have some more in depth help with the step by step? SageOst2024 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SageOst2024: iNaturalist isn't a usable source (circular reference; it pulls from Wikipedia). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on identification from naturalists that know what they are saying, with sources sited should count as useable though. I might be able to dig something up if that is allowed. SageOst2024 (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SageOst2024: Your draft was declined, not rejected; feel free to keep finding sources. And literally the entirety of the iNaturalist source is reused Wikipedia content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep finding sources. just a note:there are certain specified observations that people use non Wikipedia related articles to site, to prove species valid. additionally, inat uses plants of the world online for their database as proof of whatever is on Wikipedia when discussing plants (which we obviously are not). For this reason i will deep dive more and get better sources! thank you for your help! SageOst2024 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PaintPress (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Christopher J. Garcia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you please point out which specific claims need referencing? PaintPress (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaintPress: As a rule, everything that could potentially be challenged by a reasonable person MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates it or, failing that, removed. This is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what specifically needs citation in the article? What in it can be challenged? PaintPress (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaintPress: Answers:

• "[Garcia] eventually became the curator [of the Computer History Museum] focusing on computer graphics, music, art, and video games." - Source?
• "He remained with the museum through 2019." - Source?
• "In 2001, [Garcia] joined the programming team for the Cinequest film festival, becoming the co-head of short film programming." - Source?
• "Garcia himself was nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer from 2007 through 2013." - Source? (The source here is too sparse and thus useless for notability and for biographical claims.)
• "James Bacon became co-editor in 2008 and Vanessa Applegate joined in 2014[.]" - Sources?

—Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

what is double grazing Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti It is the eating of grass from a field twice instead of once. What did you think it was? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no human being he can not eat grass instead of healthy food 182.186.23.93 (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti, @DoubleGrazing is the name that a particular editor has chosen for their Wikipedia account. If you look over this page, you will see that they are one of the most prolific responders to questions here. ColinFine (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just submitted my first draft, which was declined by the Articles for Creation, and was told that it sounded more like an advertisement. Are there any words I should look out for when editing to prevent this tone from coming across? Are there some strategies I can use when editing to make sure my draft sounds more neutral? Wyneep (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“historic victory has been a driving force behind her continued advocacy for the rights of illegitimate children.” and “She takes pride in her role as a mother and strives to show other women that regardless of whether they come from traditional or nontraditional families, they can pursue their goals and advance their careers.” are two examples there is much more. Theroadislong (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

How Can I Provide Verified information about my profile Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mukhtar Abbas Bhatti: You don't. We're an encyclopaedia, not social media. We have no use for profiles. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Km302427 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Joseph Litzinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I wanted to check on my submission to see if there are any issues with the draft. It got declined in March so I edited it based on the notes I received. I received a message on LinkedIn today saying that I should tell this person if everything looks good to be published. I responded that it looks good and they responded asking for my WhatsApp number. Is this a scam or real? It was outside of Wikipedia but they linked to the draft of the page. Km302427 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a scam; end all communications with them. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]