• Irishkiwi007 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Battleground Melbourne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am not sure what more I can do to reference this article. The documentary was published on You Tube and is still there. The Director commented on facebook the number of views in the first 48 hours (reference to FB post added). The movie details (producer, director, cast, etc) have all been taken from the movie credits.

This is a small time product on a small budget with no advertising. Maybe watch Battleground Melbourne before you reject again?

Irishkiwi007 (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irishkiwi007 The content of the documentary is immaterial. Wikipedia is not for documenting the mere existence of a topic. It will only merit a Wikipedia article if it receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable film. If no independent sources write about this documentary, it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Facebook and YouTube are not independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also gather that you may have an association with this film, if so, please review conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A Cutting Edge Glass (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Security Screens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would really like to know the reason why my post was rejected. The text is written organically and all the information is 100% accurate, I also I think the information about this product is very useful and I don't think there is any misuse. Can you please give me advice so that I can improve my post and so that it is eventually accepted by you.

Best Regards! A Cutting Edge Glass & Mirror A Cutting Edge Glass (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Cutting Edge Glass Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a topic, or to advertise a topic. An article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about a topic, showing how that topic is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Your draft offers no sources, which are required for verification purposes. It is also worded as more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rkieferbaum (talk · contribs)
  • Daniel Florencio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Daniel Florencio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, everyone! I'm experienced in ptwiki (portuguese) but haven't done many edits in enwiki, so I'm here to request a little assistance. The article above was moved to draft with the request to add more reliable, independent sources. It currently has 26 references, most of which are from well established media vehicles (including the BBC), though, granted, most of these aren't in English. I'm guessing this is the reason for the move and am currently working on adding more sources in English.

If there's anything else of note, then constructive input would be more than welcome.

Thanks and cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) Rkieferbaum (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkieferbaum: I have not reviewed the sources but English sources are not required so that is not the issue. I suggest reading WP:THREE and posting a note on the draft's talk page with the three best sources you believe establish notability. I also suggest trimming out some the sources. There is generally no need to have multiple sources to support a fact so use the best one. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A40585 (talk · contribs)

I'd like some more in-depth feedback on my article's rejection. The reason it was rejected was reading like an essay. I would like a bit more feedback on why this was, since I read the links the reviewer linked when I was writing the article, and I thought I was writing in a relatively encyclopedic fashion. Everything is sourced in primary/secondary sources (I admittedly need to fix up citing Wikipedia for a few sentences, I will do that tomorrow when I have the time). I made sure to not include my opinions, and basically summarize what my sources said about the topic. I would find it very useful to find more specific pointers about what language/parts of my article are specifically essay-like, since I thought I was doing what the links my reviewer linked were doing. Thanks a lot! A40585 (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A40585: As written it reads more like an educational essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Keep it simple. Stick strictly to what the sources themselves say, do not extrapolate, and do not editorialise. You're not writing for the benefit of a bunch of students, you're writing for Joe Blow Splhamoney who's not looking for textbook examples; they just want an overview of what it is and a back-of-the-napkin explanation of what it does. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]