• Fanssnap (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:King Luxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

So a young famous LGBT Activist from Saudi Arabia, who gets arrested several times for being himself and all the big media write about it, is not "sufficiently notable" for Wikipedia? But the Wikipedia pages about pornstars are notable? Clearly Wikipedia want to hide this topic like the people who arrested this young man. Fanssnap (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DavidLevinson (talk · contribs)
  • Micromobility (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Micromobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Micromobility had 3.4 million hits on Google search, numerous magazine and link articles, but no Wikipedia entry. The article should be restored.

dml (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dml (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidLevinson: WP:SOFIXIT. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sussex Wolves (talk · contribs)
  • Jesse Mustonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Jesse Mustonen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sussex Wolves (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All my work is correct. Why do you keep deleting it. I can not give you references from books as it doesnt come from book but does come from various websites and from my attending racing meeting. I have been attending meetings and football matches for over 50 years and having many records I am putting of your site. Do you want to me to reference myself?

Hi Sussex Wolves. Correctness is a good quality, but not a sufficient one. All Wikipedia articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, published sources. Content is not based on editors' personal experience or knowledge. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you may add it. The essay "Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth" may clarify this. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So therefor I can go to a football match and see a 0-0 draw a record it. I put it on Wikipedia as a 0-0 draw but that's not god enough. But something could have happened 500 years ago and someone told someone who told someone who told someone who told someone and that is good enough for Wikipedia.

or 'correctness is not sufficient one'

I could write something I know is wrong but because its previously been referenced as correct it ok to add it.

I have also put on two other pages recently - Staffordshire Senior Cup 1899-1900 and Staffordshire Senior Cup 1899-1900, the second of which was removed by yourselves. Now to get the info I have used up to 25 different newspapers from the time which as far I am concerned thats reference enough but Wikipedia does not agree. I could have reference a couple of books some of the info came out of but I didn't because the Author is a proved to make thing up but because it has a bsi number it would be ok with Wikipedia.

Sussex Wolves yeah, personal experiences aren't really admissable in Wikipedia. We want reliable sources to talk about the subject, and we summarise these points. Wikipedia is strictly against WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Scharrlib (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:School of Health and Related Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I had made changes to the page as per suggestions. I believe that this page has merit to exist on Wikipedia as The School of Health and Related Research is a health research school with international esteem comparable with other University of Sheffield schools that are included on Wikipedia. ScHARR is not a department, but a school. It is also comparable to other UK health research schools such as The University of York's that exist on Wikipedia. Both inform national health policy and deliver international standard teaching https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Centre_for_Reviews_and_Dissemination

Scharrlib (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Gumswick55 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Russia–United States sports rivalries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi. Could someone review my draft? I’ve been waiting for more than a day. Thank you.

Gumswick55 (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently rejected by Theroadislong. Perhaps the stake that sticks up gets hammered down. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rob-ALVB (talk · contribs)
  • Decora (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Decora (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I'm trying to launch a wikipedia page for my good friend and independent musician Decora. Not sure what I should edit to get this published. Maybe it's the type of references being used? or the way it's worded? This is my first entry to wikipedia. Was hoping to get this up and running for him earlier this year. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! -Rob

Rob-ALVB (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SteveJBishop (talk · contribs)
  • User:SteveJBishop/sandbox/justbookitnow.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This copy is based on TicketMaster's own page so the text is structured in that way - why is there page not banned as promotion when this is? This page is factually correct and provides base structure of information. There are links out to the site and referenced but that is the same as ticketmaster - if this is a problem, let me know and I can update it but given other pages exist in the same structure I am confused as it is inconsistent policing? SteveJBishop (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold pending paid editing disclosure, see User talk:SteveJBishop#Declare any connection. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fasil Mp 42.107.200.138 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Fasil Mp/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

42.107.200.138 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fasil Mp Fasil Mp (talk · contribs)
  • User:Fasil Mp/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fasil Mp (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fasil Mp Fasil Mp (talk · contribs)
  • User talk:Fasil Mp (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a biography and I want know more people about this biography in Wikipedia Fasil Mp (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fasil Mp Editors may create a user page containing limited autobiographical information for the purpose of collaboration with other editors. If that was what you were trying to do with User:Fasil Mp/sandbox, then you do not need to submit it for review. Simply write at User:Fasil Mp.

It is draft articles that need to be submitted for review before being published as encyclopedia articles. If that is what your sandbox submission was intended as, then please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space, blog, or social networking site. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ryan Mindo (talk · contribs)
  • User:Ryan Mindo/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Ryan Mindo (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wanderguides (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Visier Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've struggled with understanding what moderators are classifying as "significant coverage" regarding this post. Based on my review of the WP:SIGCOV guidelines, several of the sources linked qualify for inclusion and are directly related to the content in the wiki page. What is not specifically being addressed here? Wanderguides (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderguides (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wanderguides. Most businesses are not suitable subjects for an encyclopedia article. You may find WP:BFAQ#COMPANY informative.

WP:SIGCOV is the general notability guideline. For what significant coverage means in the context of companies, look at WP:CORPDEPTH. Picking five of the cited sources at random:

• Diginomica #1 is a primary source interview where the CEO talks about the company without independent analysis by the interviewer, so it isn't independent and isn't secondary.
• The Globe and Mail and VentureBeat #2 are independent, reliable, and secondary, but are fundamentally routine coverage of a round of capital raising, which is trivial coverage, not significant coverage.
• pehub.com is a press release, so not independent.
• Deloitte #2 is "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists", which the corporate notability guidelines explicitly exclude as trivial coverage.

--Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fasil Mp (talk · contribs)
  • User:Fasil Mp/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a biography and I want know more people about this biography

Fasil Mp (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has no content apart from your name age and occupation, I'm afraid you are not yet notable enough for an article, but be assured that once you are someone will write an article about you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fasil Mp (talk · contribs)
  • User:Fasil Mp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 223.230.140.171 (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!
  • Shamsheer vayalil alma mater is not shown on his profile on google. It needs to be indicated on his profile.

223.230.140.171 (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eagleash fixed the problem. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• T1aacref (talk · contribs)
  • Geeta Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Geeta Chopra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HELLO, HOW DO I ADD A PICTURE ON MY WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE? THANK YOU! T1aacref (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T1aacref. Please don't write in all capital letters. It is seen as shouting.

Unless you took the picture yourself, start with Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. To further understand what the copyright holder has to give up, you may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you can't get permission, you can't use the image. Once you have the correct permission, adding an image is a two-step process: upload it, then use it in on a page.

Go to Commons:First steps and carefully step through the tutorial. When you get to "First steps/Uploading files", don't dive in too hastily. First follow the link on that page to learn about the different licensing options. Other useful advance reading includes Wikipedia:File names and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which will prepare you to answer important questions the upload wizard will ask you. If after that you have any questions or doubts, Commons has its own help desk.

Once you've uploaded an image, the picture tutorial explains how to use it on a page. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]