• Jmekis (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Exchange Job Definition Format (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help, and don't know how to get it.

Drmies, in his decline to publish comments said: "How many times will this be submitted without actual reliable secondary sources? A slide presentation and a website are not going to cut it." His comment page is locked, so I can't ask questions there.

If there were only those two references I would certainly agree with Drmies!

But there are also: two books on the topic in the XJDF "References" section (one published by Printing Industries of America), and also a 50 page XJDF whitepaper published by the German printing industries federation (bvdm). XJDF is also integrated into an ISO PDF standard (with inline reference). There are secondary references to address a "primary" complaint on membership info. When combined, I believe this qualifies as "notable".

There is a published German Wikipedia page of the same name at https://de.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Exchange_Job_Definition_Format. The German author of that page contributed to my English draft page and has proposed translating and incorporating what I have written into the German version. That page does not have as many independent references as mine. My experience so far says that if I simply translated that page to English, it would be declined here also.

A commercial printer can choose to build their own XJDF integration as did Stefan Meissner (author of one of the books) as CTO of one of Europe's largest commercial printers, or they can buy equipment with XJDF integration capabilities built in, or they can contact an integration service. Getting a Wiki page up will make it easier for english-speaking commercial printers to find these resources, which is my (volunteered) goal.

Questions:

• What specifically would you want to changed?
• Can I declare this article a Stub to make it easier for others users to find & enhance it?

Jmekis (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmekis: this draft cites seven sources, of which at least the first six are primary (it's not immediately clear what the seventh is, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability). There are also four sources listed under 'References', but they aren't actually referred to anywhere (as in, not cited), and three more under 'External links', but those aren't currently contributing towards the referencing requirements. If you wish them to do so, you need to cite them.

Whether or not an article on this subject exists in the German-language Wikipedia is neither here nor there, as each language version is completely separate with their own policies and requirements. The English-language one probably has the most onerous requirements, for many years now.

And no, you cannot "declare" this a stub, because at nearly 10k bytes it almost certainly isn't one, and in any case stubs are subject to the same standards for acceptance as bigger drafts.

I'll just finish by saying that you've had no fewer than five reviewers assess this, at seven (!) reviews, and you really don't have many more lives left, so you need to either produce sources that indisputably demonstrate notability beyond reasonable doubt, or expect this draft to be rejected at the next review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the only "actionable" reply I've received since I began creating this page. For example, I had no idea that independent references in the "references" section didn't count unless I cite them inline in the text.

I do have one more question on how you evaluate acceptable references, based on your count vs. what I see. Can you please clarify?

• DoubleGrazing: "this draft cites seven sources, of which at least the first six are primary (it's not immediately clear what the seventh is, but in any case it alone wouldn't be enough to establish notability)".

When I look at them, I see #1 & #2 as intentionally primary, I agree. However, it seems to me that the next 4+ sources are solid, so I want to understand what you see in those:

.#3 is a secondary reference for #2 primary, and comes from Ghent Workgroup. These are the folks that created the PDF/X document imaging standards that are now ISO standards. (Selecting PDF/X options within Acrobat Distiller, or InDesign is often required by publications worldwide for advertising submissions and some content to insure it prints properly.) Ghent Workgroup refers people to CIP4 standards when it comes to specifying media/binding/etc. We are not related.

.#4 is ISO, confirming that CIP4 has a working "liaison" relationship with ISO for standards development, as stated in the text.

.#5 is an online prepress industry magazine citation that confirms how CIP4's creation history, initially by four industry heavy-weights, all trying to solve the same interoperability problems. There are other sources that can be used, but this one was both clear & brief.

.#6 is an ISO standard document's table-of-contents image that confirms CIP4's XJDF has a significant role in their PDF metadata standard, as stated in the text. (ISO standards are behind a paywall, so I can't just provide a direct link.)

.#7 Meissner's's book describes implementing parallel usage of XJDF combined with legacy JDF, as I described. (I did not specify a page-range within the reference. Would that make it a stronger reference?)

Resulting Question:

Shouldn't these sources then qualify as independent, and count towards notability, or is there some other element that I am missing? Jmekis (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmekis: all I was saying is that sources 3-6 are primary; they may or may not be independent, and may or may not be reliable, but either way they don't count towards notability. Just to pick one example, ref #4 is the ISO organisation stating that CIP4 cooperates with them. I'm sure that's true, I've no reason to doubt that. But this contributes nothing to the notability of CIP4, let alone of the Exchange Job Definition Format. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Owleyesinthelibrary (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gregory Masurovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've been working on this draft for some time. I think I've taken care of the notability and tone concerns. I still get questions about sources. There is one major source, a publication about the artist from Black Mountain College. Additionally, there is information on the college's museum website and from an international art dealer/museum director, both of which are cited. Are these sufficient?

I belief the reason for the paucity of sources in English is that the artist spent his career in France.

His work is in enough collections and his publications numerous enough that it would be good if there were a ready source of information about him, like Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help and looking forward to your suggestions on how to proceed. Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Owleyesinthelibrary: you get questions about sources, because verifiability is a fundamental requirement for everything published on Wikipedia. Even if you're showing notability by some guideline other than WP:GNG, ie. where you don't need to produce sources that are independent and with significant coverage and all that, the sources still need to be reliable, and everything you say in the draft has to be supported by such sources. If you have made a statement that comes from, and is only backed up by, a non-reliable source, and you cannot find a better one, then you must remove that statement.

Note that sources do not need to be in English, as long as they otherwise meet the reliability etc. requirements. They also don't need to be online, offline sources are perfectly acceptable as long as they again are of sufficient quality, and you cite them with comprehensive enough detail that they can be reliably identified for verification (see WP:OFFLINE). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thanks for the feedback. I think I have a grasp on what constitutes reliable sources in general. My question now is whether these specific sources for this entry are sufficient.

Thanks again for your help. Owleyesinthelibrary (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Cesenapara (talk · contribs)
  • Laura Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Laura Brennan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I accidentally submitted the draft for review as a "biography of a living person" instead of a "biography of a deceased person". Cesenapara (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cesenapara: no worries, makes no real difference to anything. Most of the time I (for one) don't even look at which category the draft is in. The draft contents and references are what matter. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Meio2934 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Benji Krol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hey, I notice the page for Benji Kroll did not had enough media coverage listed there. so i edited the page and added citation and links in reliable sources. could you review the page for it to be added into the main space ? Meio2934 (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Meio2934: this draft has been rejected already, and will not be considered further; I have therefore reverted the submission. If you have new evidence of notability which wasn't previously considered, you may appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the consideration :) I rewrote the article and added 21 news covers as evidence could you take. Look ? Meio2934 (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Chuksjonia (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gichuki Jonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made my Author page on book i am writing and my post was rejected. Why? Is it because i am an African writer? Chuksjonia (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuksjonia: we don't have 'author pages', we publish encyclopaedia articles on topics which are notable, as evidenced by referencing. You have offered nothing to suggest that you are notable.

Moreover, you shouldn't be writing about yourself, even if you were notable, for all the reasons outlined in WP:AUTOBIO.

Promotion is also not allowed on Wikipedia, and that very much includes self-promotion.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanrimz (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Digital Boost New Zealand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've made some minor edits to read less like an advertisement, is this looking better? It should read more neutral now. Meanrimz (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Meanrimz: IMO this still reads like a corporate brochure. Is there anything encyclopaedically notable about this subject? If so, focus on that, and pretty much only that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Antonio Vinzaretti (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bitget (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What's wrong who can explain to me, thanks Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by the reviewer, "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." 331dot (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but at least leave the comment will be good move, no? By the way, I changed how it looks and re-submitted, cause I feel unappreciatable tone by rejecting in a seconds after request review. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 10:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. Declined means you have the opportunity to improve it and submit it again (which you have done). Comments by reviewers are optional, as what you needed to know is in the grey box. Qcne (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• SGC101009 (talk · contribs)
  • Melissa Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Melissa Powers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am trying to clean up the draft. I added in some text about her judicial career and have a news citation for it. I am unable to figure out how to make the citation correct and am confused, as the interface has changed. Do you have any help for me with this? SGC101009 (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SGC101009: I've corrected the citation for you. I don't think the template has changed, you may have just taken a wrong turn somewhere. Also, do not sign your edits anywhere other than talk pages and similar.

BTW, I would suggest that you think about notability very carefully, because while I was having a look around the draft I didn't see much evidence of that, and this has been declined for lack of notability already once, before the copyvio issue. Notability is probably your main challenge in getting this accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this feedback and help! I appreciate it! SGC101009 (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Achillzog (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Music and Chess APOLLO MEETS CAISSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We don't know what to do with our submission... in fact it was not meant to be a draft but a final version! please help! Achillzog (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achillzog you need to have a separate username for each person per the username policy. Non-autoconfirmed editors are not allowed to created articles in the article space, so you have to create a draft. Once you become autoconfirmed, you can move it to mainspace, or you can submit it for Articles for Creation.

So far, the article needs to be wikified with citations, section headers, non-bare URLs, etc. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you picked up a violin for the very first time, and started playing, would you expect that to be not a practice but a recital? So why do you expect to be able to write a Wikipedia article at the very first attempt?

I always advise new editors to spend a few months learning how Wikipedia works by improving some of our six million existing articles (and in particular, learning about references and notability) before they even try to create a new article.

In any case, writing about your own book is even harder, because it is likely to be difficult for you to achieve the required neutral point of view. What you will need to do, once you have found the wholly independent reliable sources that discuss the book in depth, is to forget everything you know about the book, and write an article based only on what those independent sources say. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achillzog There is little there to suggest that the topic is notable, see WP:YFA, the layout is appalling see WP:MOS and the referencing is poor, see WP:REFB. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merv Mat (talk · contribs)
  • Get On Your Knees (Nicki Minaj song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Get On Your Knees (Nicki Minaj song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I need help. Merv Mat (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need help on specifically @Merv Mat. Have you read and understood the comments left by the reviewers, and the criteria at WP:NSONG? Qcne (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do get your article to be accepted? Merv Mat (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merv Mat, read and understand the comments left by the reviewers, and the criteria at WP:NSONG. Do you have any specific questions? Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put in 5 refs for my draft and they still won't accept it Merv Mat (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merv Mat as the last declining reviewer said, there needs to be independent notability for the song as opposed to the album. Number of references does not matter, the quality does. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do that? Merv Mat (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merv Mat find quality references that prove notability under WP:NSONG. Qcne (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merv Mat why did you re-submit it again? I have declined it. Your references give no indication of the song meeting WP:NSONG. Qcne (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 103.121.223.49 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Needy Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to improve draft:Needy Foundation as a good article? 103.121.223.49 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DanSag1&24 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Emanuel Lopez (Singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

How to cite if the primary source is the person im writing about DanSag1&24 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DanSag1&24: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the primary source is the person im writing about", but just to say that sources must be WP:PUBLISHED, not just oral accounts. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Percurrent (talk · contribs)
  • Acts 2 Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Acts 2 Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, thank you for your attention. My draft article is supported by three in-depth, reliable, secondary, independent sources. No reviewer has specifically disagreed with this, it's been discussed on my talk page. Still, the submission has been twice declined for not meeting notability criteria, with no further explanation. First reviewer said "It's close to notability but not quite there" even though the rule is two quality sources, and the article now has three quality sources. Second reviewer has not explained anything yet. Is it normal on Wikipedia for declines to work this way? Percurrent (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Percurrent: have you asked the most recent reviewer what their concern with this was? Courtesy ping: Jamiebuba

And BTW, where does it say that "the rule is two quality sources"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>>Where does it say that "the rule is two quality sources"?

I was thinking of WP:ORG but you are correct, it actually says "multiple" rather than "at least two". Percurrent (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Percurrent: thank you. There is no hard and fast interpretation of "multiple" (that I'm aware of, at least), but it is usually thought to mean 3+. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 2601:47:4086:180:A5C0:B8A9:575E:D36E (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Keith Kopka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I was told this topic isn't notable enough for a wikipedia page. How is a published author not notable? 2601:47:4086:180:A5C0:B8A9:575E:D36E (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are any number of published authors who aren't notable. (Heck, I'm one!) It's not enough to be an author, they need to satisfy either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]