May 27[edit]

• Xinxin Ming (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Mountain Rain Zen Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

This submission was rejected due to lack of notability.

Some of the citations are certainly dependent coverage, namely the references to the organization's website and one of the references to an article that was authored by a leader in the organization (Kate McCandless).

However, I have questions about why the other citations don't qualify. Two of the citations are to academic books, independently published by authors unaffiliated with the organization. The lengths of mentions in the books are about a paragraph each. To my eyes, this seemed like it would qualify as "multiple independent reliable sources" as described by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Am I missing something here?

In addition, one of the articles cited was authored by someone unaffiliated with the organization (it was, however, published by a third-party, Northwest Dharma, that exists to promote other Buddhist organizations -- if that is still considered dependent coverage, fair enough, but I'd be curious to know for certain).

What are some concrete examples of additional citations that would help qualify this article for notability, if not independent academic publications?

Any other suggestions for how I might improve this article?

I have, for the record, declared a Conflict of Interest on the talk page that reads:

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Xinxin Ming (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (I have attended events at MRZC; I am not a teacher, priest, practice leader, member of the Board of the non-profit society, nor a Communications Officer, nor was I asked to edit on behalf of any such person. I receive no renumeration for editing.)

Many thanks,

XXM Xinxin Ming (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing tagging you here as you were the initial reviewer. Xinxin Ming (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xinxin Ming: the draft has six citations, two to the organisation's own website (obviously not independent), two to Northwest Dharma Association (a primary source), and one to the Matthews book which makes only a brief mention of the organisation (literally two sentences, as far as I can tell). The remaining one I don't have access to, but no matter how good it may be, it alone isn't enough to satisfy WP:ORG; we typically require three sources meeting the standard outlined in WP:GNG.

Thank you for making the disclosure. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing Got it. Thank you for your time and feedback 🙏 Xinxin Ming (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 151.192.207.156 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Wikikclun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I refer to the speedy deletion of my draft submission. Can I retrieve my submission for modification so that it complies with Wikipedia guidelines. Pls let me have the link to my deleted article for retrieval and modification. Thanks KC Lun 151.192.207.156 (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log into your account whenever editing (I'm assuming you're Wikikclun).

And please read the message posted on the bottom of your talk page User talk:Wikikclun.

Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Iridium27 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Monolayer-protected cluster molecules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The tittle of the page was changed and we think that the current tittle is not informative. The tittle seems to overlap with already existing tittles such as "Nanocluster" and "Thiolate-protected gold cluster". Furthermore, it is currently ambiguous and not totally aligned with the content. Is it possible to change the tittle to be more informative? We would suggest it to be "The crystal structures of monolayer protected clusters", because the crystal structures are the main focus of the page. Iridium27 (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridium27: technically speaking this is no longer an AfC matter, since the article was published a couple of days ago. You should go to the general Help desk or the Teahouse with editing queries like this.

I presume the current title was chosen by the accepting reviewer, because at the time of acceptance the beginning of the draft read:

Monolayer protected clusters (MPCs) are one type of nanoparticles or clusters of atoms. A single MPC contains...

The way encyclopaedia articles (unlike, perhaps, many other works) are written is that the title term (in bold), which defines the subject of the article, is typically the article title, and vice versa.

The article could be moved to a different title, including by you since you have confirmed account status. However, whether it should be moved is a different matter. There are many considerations in naming articles, please study WP:TITLE before attempting to do so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for the advise. I'll check the naming page and ask from the general section. Iridium27 (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thesazh (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Nindha (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Waiting for review Thesazh (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesazh: that's not a question; did you have one in mind? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry! I meant to ask, to help me on the article I've written regarding the sources I have mentioned were reliable enough or do I need to gather more sources? Thesazh (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thesazh: you're effectively asking us to review your draft, which isn't something we do here at the help desk; a reviewer will assess it sooner or later, please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

How to fixed it Mssandipan (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mssandipan: how to fixed (sic) what? What are you asking? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that you have not read our guidelines and that you have an undeclared conflict of interest. If you want to promote your business, please go elsewhere. Deb (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Abhi892 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:503 AD Mssile Regiment (MRSAM) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What should I do so that my article dosen't get rejected. being part of the same organisation on which I am writting article, I am feeling very helpless as even I have to justify that what I am producing is correct. Please help me out in updating the same. Abhi892 (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhi892: your draft (not yet article) has been rejected.

For future reference, what you should not do is just keep resubmitting without any attempt to address the decline reasons; that is a sure-fire way to end up with a rejection.

What you must also do is disclose your conflict of interest (COI). I've posted instructions on your talk page.

Are you involved in some sort of campaign to create articles on topics related to the Indian military? I'm only asking as we're seeing a lot of such drafts recently. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your feelings are fairly usual for people who attempt the challenging task of creating an article without first spending time learning the necessary skills.

My advice to you - as to all new editors - is to put aside completely the idea of crteating a new article, and spend at least a few weeks making improvements to existing articles and learning about basic principles of Wikipedia, such as verifiability, reliable sources, neutral point of view, and most importantly notability.

When you have an understanding of all those principles, you can read your first article and probably conflict of interest. ColinFine (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Rollin Jarrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am very confused by the reasoning to deny my submitted article (subject: Rollin Jarrett). The submitted subject (article) CLEARY has honorable mentions worldwide and even mentions on wikipedia alone. All films mentioned in the submitted article (Rollin Jarrett) have their very own wikipedia articles and these films are written by Rollin Jarrett (the articles even reference ROLLIN JARRETT as the writer). All actors involved or associated with the films written by Rollin Jarret have their own articles and these articles show their roles in the films that are written by my submitted subject (Rollin Jarrett). Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Musicabdmediaentgroup like I said when declining the draft, it does not meet WP:NACTOR in its current state. We cannot cite IMDb or LinkedIn, and the 2 other sources do not mention Jarrett directly (i.e. no significant coverage). Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has zero independent, reliable published sources and you need to disclose your paid editing status. Theroadislong (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I understand the cites you mentioned. But - you say the articles don't mention Mr. Jarrett directly? He's mentioned on them as the writer. For example: American Vampire (film) - Wikipedia

Any further help you can provide is appreciated. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot cite other Wikipedia articles per WP:CIRCULAR. And are you being paid for your editing? If you are you must disclose it per WP:PAID. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being paid to edit and nor do I know Mr. Jarrett personally. I mainly do music marketing and I have some involvment in film. After reading about his new release Daylight To Dark, I went to wikipedia to search for the subject. I thought it was increasingly odd and ironic that Mr. Jarrett did not have an article aleady but the films he has written does. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need citations that just mention him- they must provide significant coverage of him, coverage that goes beyond just telling of the existence of his work, and goes into detail about what makes him important/significant/influential- how he meets WP:NACTOR or more broadly WP:BIO. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will locate the appropriate citations and sources. I appreciate your help. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Musicabdmediaentgroup: it seems to me that you may think that simply doing one's job (be it as an actor, screenwriter, or other) makes one notable; this is not so. We're not doubting that Jarrett has been involved in films, we're saying that's not enough.

Also, there is quite a lot of unreferenced biographical information in this draft – where did all that come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All biographical information was found on various sites after reading about his latest film. Rotten Tomatoes, News articles, personal imdb page and sites interviewing him about film. There's many sites that reference him, I appear to only be referencing ones that aren't of credible nature on wikipedia. Musicabdmediaentgroup (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Musicabdmediaentgroup: I see. Be that as it may, you must cite your sources, it's not enough to say that sources exist somewhere out there. We have especially strict standards for referencing articles on living people (WP:BLP), for privacy etc. reasons. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, "backstage" personnel such as screenwriters don't get much press unless they already have a reputation for the quality of their work (for better or for worse). Finding sources for the overwhelming majority of them is akin to finding a bone needle in a haystack. This isn't so much a critique on them as it is a consequence of lead actors and producers/directors getting the lion's share of the credit for a film while everyone else is lucky to be mentioned, let alone discussed. The best sources here are more likely to be industry-specific periodicals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RashidB123 (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Majrooh Rashid (A R Malik) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made significant changes the draft on 2nd April 2024, but haven't received any feedback on that yet. Can you please look at the draft and let me know what I should do to get it through?

Thanks RashidB123 (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RashidB123: this draft was rejected three months ago, which means that it won't be considered further; therefore, no matter how much you edit it, it won't be reviewed anymore. If you now have evidence of notability which wasn't considered earlier, you may make your case directly to the reviewer who rejected it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RashidB123 You will not receive feedback. This draft was rejected way back in February. You might try discussing this with the reviewer who rejected it, and ask them to consider changing their mind. However this appears to be your autobiography. It looks to me as if you may pass WP:NPROF, but not with this draft, which has a peculiar dual reference scheme, and many unreferenced statements.

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.

Passing NPROF requires similar diligence in referencing 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Debflom (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Scott Bronstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I was hoping to get some assistance before I re-submitted this one. We've spent some time finding a great deal more outside citations to reference for him. I'm hoping this would get approved now, but I was wondering if someone could take a look at it now to see if it's likely to get approved or if there is anything else I can do to help at this point? thank you so much for the assistance. Debflom (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Debflom Who is "we", please?

All inline links should be removed, please, and turned into references if appropriate, Wikilinks, or external links in a section so named. See Wikipedia:External links. There should be no links pointing to external sources until those in the 'References' section (with the exception of one optional link in any infobox).

Pre-reviews are nt what this process is really about 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! I appreciate your time! Debflom (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• TideCTRL (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:Chonny Jash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey so, I gave evidence (The Medium qna which was stated where he said all these and even linked at the bottom) and it still got rejected? Chonny Jash himself also helped write this, so would there be any like advice? so I could resubmit to fix this? TideCTRL (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TideCTRL I'm having trouble understanding what, with precision, you are asking for. If it helps I cam tell you that all the pictures you have decorated the draft with appear to be copyright violations. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And your draft has zero reliable, independent sources so zero chance of being accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, still confused. I understand the Steve-O image, but how is the images of Chonny Jash copyrighted if he's endorsing said page? Also how is me referring to an interview with him, and linking that interview not a reliable source? None of this is meant to sound like I'm trying to come off aggressive by the way, just curious on ways I could fix it. TideCTRL (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you mean by " he's endorsing said page" the copyright of the photographs rests with the photographer, interviews confer zero notability as they are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chonny has helped with fact checking and rewording, that's what I mean by him endorsing this page. And how can I prove that the Interview is in fact him? I'm just needing some general like suggestions, as this is my first time with one of these. TideCTRL (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TideCTRL, we don't doubt that the interview is him - the problem is you can't use interviews as evidence of notability. You can use them for basic, uncontroversial facts, like if Jash said in an interview that he was born on February 29 that would be fine. But you will need to find at least three good sources not including any interviews he's done. Because Jash is a living person, the requirements for an article about him are very strict, and every single statement you write needs to be backed up with a reliable source. It doesn't matter if Jash has looked over the article and agrees everything is correct; there needs to be a reference for each statement that verifies it is correct, and those references must be from reliable sources (apart from the basic facts caveat I mentioned).

If you want to have a look at a similar article, may I suggest WikiProject Music's Featured Articles? Featured Articles (best of the best) or Good Articles (a step below Featured) are the ones to use as examples, since they have been very thoroughly vetted by the community. Have a look at David Bowie, for example: the lede (introduction part before the table of contents) has no listed references because they're all in the rest of the article, so skip past that for the moment. Starting at 'Early Life', you'll see that basically every single sentence has a reference after it. (Bowie is sadly dead, but because his death was quite recent the Living Person requirements still apply)

When it comes to the photos, the problem is that they belong to the person who took the photo. So if you took the photo, then you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons and use it in the article. If Jash took the photo and is happy to upload it to Commons, that's fine too. Keep in mind though that when you upload an image to Commons, you are saying that anyone can use it or alter it in any way they like. Most likely the only time it will ever be used is in an article about him on Wikipedia, but it's also possible that it could be used in newspapers, or advertising, or by people who don't like him. This licensing tutorial might be helpful!

Although like you I am quite a new editor, I'd be happy to look at sources you find and try to help you work out whether they're suitable - there's a lot of resources available within Wikipedia to guide us but this is already a wall of text so I won't keep going. Feel free to comment on my talk page if you wish. Good luck and happy editing! StartGrammarTime (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has very little interest in what Chonny has endorsed, we base articles on what independent sources say and interviews are not independent so cannot be used to establish notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I get that, all I'm asking is if there's any way I can prove these sources as true and not have the images be labeled as copyrighted TideCTRL (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TideCTRL Please read the following text:

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.

That is what you have to achieve. Find the sources whch prove that he is notable, and it will go forward, all else being equal. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The images are dealt with on Wikimedia Commons, not here, and instructions are on c:User talk:TideCTRL. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The great jacobius (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:David W Martin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why was David W Martin rejected? The great jacobius (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The great jacobius Please confirm that you have read the message in the biog, pink, decline box. It has been pushed back to you for further work, not rejected 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The great jacobius: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yurii Melnyk (talk · contribs) ^(TB)
  • Draft:International Journal of Science Annals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear sir, Thank you for your offers of help. The indexing services listed (please note that there are more than 40 of them on the Journal's website) testify to the popularity of this Journal. The Journal's website confirms this. It is visited daily by dozens of readers from 166 countries. Also, according to the WorldCat link, this journal is held in the archives of 159 libraries around the world. Therefore, this topic is of sufficient importance to be included in the Wikipedia. Please note that this journal may have been noted by various entities such as the ISSN International Centre and WorldCat. This is in line with the requirements of the WP:NJournals . The IJSA meets high scientific and ethical standards and is recognised worldwide. Therefore, the page deserves to be added to Wikipedia. Is it possible to move the article to the main space? Thanks a lot for your work.

Yurii Melnyk (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yurii Melnyk: starting with your last question, whether or not this draft could be published, it shouldn't be you moving it into the main article space, given the conflict of interest (COI) which you have disclosed on your user page (and thank you for doing so).

Most of the factors you list, such as how many libraries hold this journal or how many countries visitors to your website come from, are not criteria in our WP:NJOURNALS or WP:GNG notability guidelines. The indexing services one could be, but not quite the way you put it across: it isn't the number of indices that matters, but rather their quality; 40 non-selective ones don't establish notability, whereas a single selective one may do.

That said, this is all somewhat academic (no pun), as the draft has been rejected, which usually means the end of the road. If evidence of notability is now available which wasn't considered earlier, you may approach the rejecting reviewer directly to appeal the rejection, but if you do, I suggest you build your case solely on policy-based arguments referring to NJOURNALS, rather than on irrelevant metrics or subjective arguments such as "deserves to be added to Wikipedia". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]