• Sunshinesunshine24 (talk · contribs)

Hi there, I by mistake submit the Therapeutic Privilege draft for review by mistake. Is it possible to please cancel this request?

Sunshinesunshine24 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 203.1.252.71 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Australasian Radiation Protection Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for reviewing the draft. We are working to add more detailed references to establish the standing of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society We're a little bit confused about the requirement for references, with respect to establishing ARPS is a notable society. We note that an equivalent professional association ACPSEM have a wiki page with only 3 references. ^[1] Like ARPS, ACPSEM is an important professional association in Australasia. ARPS is an Associate Society of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). The IRPA wiki page clearly lists ARPS as one of 50 associate societies. ^[2] IRPA have substantial rules to become an Associate Society. ^[3] IRPA have a detailed code of ethics that ARPS has to uphold <ref>https://irpa.net/docs/IRPA%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf<\ref> The detail behind the initial references provided is substantial. We're not really sure that being a member of IRPA is trivial. We understand that IRPA may not be widely known We recognise the need to expand on establishing the standing of ARPS and have added references to reflect the scope of the work we do.

203.1.252.71 (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists. It could be that these other articles(not pages) you have seen are also inappropriate and simply have not been addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us.

Your draft just tells about the organization and what it does. Wikipedia articles must do more, they must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the organization- and not based on any materials put out by the orgnanization like interviews, press releases, basic descrpitions, routine announcements of activities, etc.- showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. I might suggest that you review some other articles on organizations that may be classified as good articles to get an idea of what is being looked for. Please also read Your First Article.

You seem to have an association with this organization, please read about conflict of interest. If you are a paid representative of the organization, you must review the paid editing policy and make a formal declaration, which is a Terms of Use requirement. This is easier to do with an account, but it's not required that you have an account. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

03:54:44, 6 January 2022 review of submission by Jaf324

• Jaf324 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Australasian Radiation Protection Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm not making an argument to create this article based on "other stuff exists". There are numerous articles about associations that don't seem to meet what is being asked of this draft article. Just trying to clarify the situation. https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Category:Professional_associations_based_in_Australia? I've partially reviewed the list of "good articles". There were no professional associations that I could see. I'm not sure a professional association could qualify for inclusion. What makes the association notable is different to being on "Man vs Food". The goal here is to understand how a professional association can meet the requirements. ARPS is notable for the impact of its activities on professional standards. It provides multiple opportunities for professional development and networking. Members get together, share knowledge and a patient or employee gets lower radiation dose 6 months later because the organisation held a workshop. Demonstrating the intangible is difficult to meet the wiki requirements. However, the following points are not really passing mentions. 1. Reference has been provided to the organisation giving members the opportunity to comment on radiation protection legislation and draft standards without being constrained by COI with the position of their employers. Listing Codes of practice and legislation that have been changed in response doesn't feel useful in an article. 2. An independent, peer reviewed scientific journal found the organisation notable enough to publish discussion of its position paper. 3. The jointly developed peer reviewed international journal on radiation protection is included in journal indexing services. SCOPUS has an independent advisory board that decides which journals to index. That board decided to include the journal jointly developed by the organisation. That's significant, independent recognition of the organisation, while not being a discussion about the organisation. https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Scopus Radiation protection is a high profile, contentious, public issue. The article is being drafted by SMEs to improve the encyclopedia by providing information relevant to Australia, New Zealand and Oceanic region. ARPS, like wikipedia, is a volunteer, non-profit, organisation. The organisation is already well known nationally and internationally, it's not selling a product. I'm not paid. I'm a member of the organisation who has volunteered to help draft an article, based on my long term knowledge of the subject matter. Jaf324 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Davidpink1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rabab Tantawy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I'm messaging after my draft was declined, I'm trying to set up a page for an artist. Any help would be much appreciated.

Davidpink1 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidpink1 Your draft was rejected, not just declined, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia has articles, not mere pages. Your draft was completely unsourced. A Wikipedia article about an artist must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the artist, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable artist. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dmarkan (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Escape The Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've changed the text of the article, removed all things that look like advertisement. If there are more changes that has to be made for article to be published, please send me a message. Thanks

Dmarkan (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You requested deletion, so I assume you withdraw your question, but in any case then draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pleiadesounds (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I would like some help to successfully publish my article about photographer Adam Broomberg. I provided many references which furnished proof about various exhibitions held in museums and galleries but they did not suffice. How can I better choose resources as to back up the claims made on the page, therefore allowing the article to be published? Thank you very much.

Pleiadesounds (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pleiadesounds. Wikipedia has an article about Adam Broomberg and Oliver Chanarin because their collaborative work may be notable - it is supposedly held by half a dozen museums, although the current article cites no sources for those claims. To justify a separate article, Draft:Adam Broomberg, on him alone, you would need to show that his individual work is notable separate from Chanarin. Since their breakup, the draft describes one exhibition at a non-notable gallery and one book Broomberg has published. If you can cite several in-depth reviews of the exhibition/book, you may be able to demonstrate individual notability. Otherwise it is WP:TOOSOON for a separate article. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedway Private Eye (talk · contribs)
  • No draft specified!

Speedway Private Eye (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you tell me why my entry on Bill Holden speedway rider was rejected? Riders in the same team are on your site so was purely adding to the canon. It seems unfair if lesser, non international riders, are featured on your site.

Thank you

Speedway Private Eye, I encourage you to reach out to the reviewer on their talk page to get an explanation of why they rejected.

With that said, there's no question it should have been declined as you are adding a lot of information that does not appear in the sources cited. Stick to the sources or add citations. A short and tight article would be much better as the subject appears notable and that is getting lost in the overly detailed narration.Slywriter (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cmehra (talk · contribs)
  • Template:AfC submission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My Name is Cyrus Mehra and I am creating a Wiki Page for my Father, Dr. Abu Torab Mehra. All the "Link" at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/User:Cmehra/sandbox?action=edit are the Reliable Sources for the information I have submitted. Please advise on how to proceed. Thanks! Cmehra (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cmehra, Writing about family members is strongly discouraged. The inherent conflict of interest is undeniable and you have no control of the article once it is published. WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI for more information.

On the content, you are writing a story, not an encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are boring recitation of facts found in independent reliable sources. Flowery language, descriptions of living rooms are not appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slywriter for your reply! So I should have one of his Students enter information about his Life as Dr. of Public Health and his contributions to the Modernization of Iran's health system? Thanks Again. Cyrus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmehra (talk • contribs) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cmehra A student would be worse, as it could be seen as paid editing in addition to a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place to just tell about someone, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources. The best thing to do is to allow unaffiliated people to take note of your father in independent sources and choose to write about him on their own, that is the best indicator of notability. It is also not necessarily a good thing to have a Wikipedia article. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• PomoPo (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mother Krishnabai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, the first draft of this article was rejected because the sources were not considered reliable. Upon further enquiry, I was told that this was because the ISBN numbers of the books had not been given. So I located and included the ISBN numbers of all the books I used and also added more sources. The article has again been rejected citing the lack of reliable sources. I really don't know what the reviewer means by this. As far as I can see, this is a well-researched article on an important female saint in India. Please let me know what else I need to do.

PomoPo (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PomoPo. I suspect the decline is mainly because no sources are cited for: the Early life paragraph; the Meeting with Swami Ramdas section; and the Anandashram, Kanhangad paragraph. Some of the page ranges cited are also mighty wide, such as p. 22–41 and loc. 52-78. The ranges may not prevent acceptance, but very broad ranges are highly undesirable because they make it difficult for readers to verify the facts in question. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr. Fahad Alharthi (talk · contribs)
  • User:Dr. Fahad Alharthi/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, can you tell me what i have to do now? I have Re-edited and am wondering if I can re-submit it. Dr. Fahad Alharthi (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may not resubmit it; it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Note that autobiographical articles are highly discouraged, please read WP:AUTO. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]