• Astute23 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Brittany Middlebrooks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good evening, I am requesting assistance for maintaining a neutral tone. I believe that one example may be: "according to Brittany ,having witnessed the "devastating effects of Alzheimer's on her family", she is passionate about raising awareness, educating the public [4], and fundraising for the cause. Brittany appeared on Fox 32 Chicago to discuss the importance of Alzheimer's research [4]". I attempted to convey the mood and emotions provided in the interviews and attribute those emotions to Brittany herself, but in this situation, should I leave words like "passionate" out of the article completely or should I find a way to demonstrate more clearly that these are her personal thoughts as stated in interviews? Astute23 (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Astute23. It is a violation of the core content policy No original research for a Wikipedia editor to conclude that someone is "passionate" about something. Aren't all successful people "passionate" about something, without needing to say so? Albert Einstein was passionate about physics and Babe Ruth was passionate about baseball and Meryl Streep is passionate about acting, but you will not see that in their Wikipedia articles, because it goes without saying, and saying it is trite. How does that differentiate this person from millions of other successful people? Would you expect to read a Wikipedia article about a great cardiac surgeon that says, "Despite her enormous success, she is not passionate about surgery". As far as language like "raising awareness, educating the public, and fundraising for the cause", that just comes off as boilerplate language to me. Again, isn't that what all activists do? Your goal should be to describe what make this person unique, not to trot out standard promotional cliches applicable to millions of people. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Eric Charles (talk · contribs)
  • Man's Country (bathhouse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Man's Country (bathhouse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I would like clarification on the grounds for the rejection of my submission. The article relies on reputable sources and is written neutrally, so I fail to understand the grounds for its rejection. Eric (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eric Charles. Your draft was not rejected. It was declined, and those are two very different things. The first means "No, never" and the second means "Work to improve your draft, and resubmit". And it looks like you have resubmitted it. I recommend that you continue working on the draft while it awaits another review. In particular, phrases like held the title of and a pioneering figure are not neutral. See the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. These three key sentences: The club's popularity peaked in the 1970s and early 1980s. Business declined as the HIV/AIDS crisis began to devastate the gay community in the mid-1980s. A dance club was added in 1987, but as the crisis subsided, patrons increasingly frequented Man's Country for sex rather than dancing or socializing. are unreferenced. You need to provide one or more references to reliable sources that verify this content. Cullen328 (talk) 09:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen, when several sentences in a row rely on the same citation, I was leaving the citation at the end of the last sentence. Should I add the citation after each sentence even if it is the same? Eric (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Charles The draft was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. "Declined" means a draft may be resubmitted(and you have already done so). According to the message left by the reviewer, it was declined due to not being written in an encyclopedic tone. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Charles: you could always ask the reviewer why specifically they declined (not 'rejected') it. Or, given that you have now resubmitted the draft, you could just wait for the next review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kru666 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sumiko Nakano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Assistance Request for Wikipedia Submission

I am writing to seek your guidance and assistance in relation to my Wikipedia submission that I have been attempting to make. The submission pertains to a biography page for Sumiko Nakano, and aims to provide readers with information about her background as a writer, as well as her family connection to Nakano Takeko.

I have encountered a recurring issue with the submission, as I keep receiving the message "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." despite my diligent efforts to provide credible references. I believe that the sources I have provided are substantial and relevant, including references to her author page on Amazon, where her upcoming book, "Shadows of the Naginata," is showcased.

I am writing to request your opinion on whether a link to her author page on Amazon can be considered a reliable source for the Wikipedia submission. The reason I believe this source is credible is because:

1. Amazon Author Pages: Amazon is a widely recognized and trusted platform for authors to promote and sell their work. Author pages on Amazon provide comprehensive information about the author, including their bibliography, biographical details, and links to published works. Readers often turn to Amazon when researching authors and their books, making it a valuable and accessible source of information.

2. Transparency and Verification: Amazon author pages are publicly accessible and verifiable by anyone interested in confirming the details about an author and their publications. The transparency and accessibility of this platform contribute to its reliability as a source of information.

3. Upcoming Book: her upcoming book, "Shadows of the Naginata," is featured on my Amazon author page. This not only substantiates her status as a writer but also provides readers with insight into her literary work, which is directly related to the biography I am submitting to Wikipedia. As an emerging author, her Amazon author page serves as a central hub for information about my writing career.

Before I proceed with any further submissions, I wanted to seek your expert opinion on the suitability of her Amazon author page as a reliable source for the Wikipedia biography. Your guidance and feedback in this matter would be greatly appreciated, as I am committed to ensuring that the information presented on Wikipedia is accurate, well-supported, and meets the community's standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and any recommendations you may have.

Kru666 (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kru666. I am the latest decliner of your draft.

Amazon Author Pages are not an WP:INDEPENDENT source so cannot be used to establish notability under WP:NWRITER. It's that simple. We need to see independent secondary sources that discuss the author, as set out in the WP:NWRITER guidelines. Qcne (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note, @Kru666, that multiple sections of your draft are entirely unsourced with zero in-line citations. This is strictly against the WP:BLPRS guidelines. So your draft would fail on this aspect too. Qcne (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you very much for your fast reply and comments I really appreciate it. I will continue to work on it. Kru666 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Be aware that you say she is an "emerging author". This may mean it is simply WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article to exist about this writer. Qcne (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 62.250.238.111 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Youcef Ben Amor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Team, do you need proof of identity ? for Youcef BEN AMOR ? 62.250.238.111 (talk) 12:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly do not need proof of ID. What we do need to see is significant coverage of him in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. We also need to see reliable published sources to verify the personal details. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Naniu9hei (talk · contribs)
  • Jake Pollock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Jake Pollock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've updated the entry and replaced the photograph. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do for approval. Thanks for your time and attention Naniu9hei (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Naniu9hei: you should please respond to the COI query posted on your talk page a week ago, describing your relationship with Mr Pollock. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I work in the Taiwan film industry and recently read Jake Pollock’s Chinese Wikipedia page. I felt that it hadn’t been updated recently and took it upon myself to edit the page. Afterwards, I decided to create an English entry to complement the original Chinese entry.

I voluntarily created this page, but I also understand the requirements of Wikipedia’s term of use , so I’ve updated my user page. Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do for approval. Thanks for your time and attention. Naniu9hei (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 209.159.198.177 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ian McPhee (Australian motorcyclist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am new to writing on Wikipedia, obviously :-) I see this draft was rejected due to the subject not meeting notability guidelines. I modeled the article after this one: Danell Lynn Her sole claim to fame is the same Guinness World Record, set as an individual, whereas McPhee set the team version of the record. I understand that other articles slipping in under the radar, so to speak, is not a valid reason for similar new articles to be approved. Before I put any work into changing the article or improving the citations, I want to be clear on whether this article has any chance of being approved, or if I've been basing my work on a questionable article that slipped through the approval cracks. Thank you! 209.159.198.177 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Saram Niazi (talk · contribs)
  • Dera Ajmal Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Plz add this to wekipedia Saram Niazi (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saram Niazi no, it has been rejected for being inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a social networking website. Qcne (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Miamireader (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:George Dunbar (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused as to what is considered  "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The coverage used to prepare the article includes featured articles specifically on Dunbar in the New York Times, the New Orleans Times-Picayune, a local arts publications, and New Orleans public radio station WWNO. These articles were not passing mentions but feature stories focused on Dunbar himself. This is an artist whose work is in the collections of major museums around the world.

Help me understand the process so I can be a better editor - and not waste everyone's time. Thank you! Miamireader (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miamireader All of your sources involve interviews with him; interviews are not an independent reliable source, as it is the person speaking about themselves. Interviews cannot be used to establish notability(though they can be used for other purposes). You need to show with independent sources that he either meets the narrow notable creative professional definition or the broader notable person definition. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking, @Miamireader, did you read my decline comment directly below the decline notice? Qcne (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• London7308 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Janet Patton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello!

Wondering about the notability claim? Attached are other Wiki pages of similar persons.... https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Beverley_Bass https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Emily_Howell_Warner https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Esther_Mbabazi

Most firsts in female aviation have been approved for Wiki pages. London7308 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See other stuff exists, your draft doesn't show how they pass wP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@London7308, if you can find multiple sources that cover Janet in detail but are not interviews or connected to her in some way, and can re-write this draft to include them, drop me a message on my Talk Page and I will review again. Qcne (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will do. Do the newspaper articles need to be achieved online? Or can they be older? — Preceding unsigned comment added by London7308 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@London7308 References need not be online. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London7308, your draft lacks a lead section which explains why the person is notable, and summarizes the rest of the content. When I read your draft, I think, "OK, she has been an airline pilot for a long time. So what?" The vast majority of airline pilots are not notable and do not have Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for Bass and Howell Warner, the references in those articles are vastly superior to the references in your draft. High quality references are like gold on Wikipedia. Everything else pales in comparison. Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Artieboy07 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:W.E.S.A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I’m kinda new, I want to make something about this cause it’s for a good cause, you know? I’ve been a wiki reader for a few months, and I think, that Wikipedia gives me, and other viewers, too much power to edit things. So, me and my friend made this. I hope for a response soon. Thanks! Sincerely, artieboy07

Artieboy07 (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Artieboy07 This is not notable even though it might be interesting. It has been rejected, whcih means it will not be considered further 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned on your talk page, the ability for people to edit articles is a fundamental principle of this project. If you have suggestions about policy/guidelines please make your case at WP:PUMP. It's not appropriate to make an article draft about your association. Qcne (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• GiovAngri (talk · contribs)
  • Francesco Zurolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Francesco Zurolo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to have your opinion on this draft, I'm putting a lot of effort into its creation, I'm also removing secondary sources from its quotes, as notes I mean. GiovAngri (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• VJKarinka (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Oleg Chechik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello! I edited the article, double-checked it 25 times. The person I am writing about is very famous and popular. Big articles are published about him. And some users, who approve your articles, reject it on purpose, and then offer in private messages to publish the article for a fee in wikipedia! This is impossible already... VJKarinka (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone offering to publish for a fee is trying to scam you. Do not give anyone money. See WP:SCAM. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@VJKarinka: that's a very serious slur to make against any reviewer, and given that I was the first one to decline this, I'm going to take it personally whether it was actually aimed at me or not. I request you to withdraw this accusation at once, or else present evidence to corroborate it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]