• Ss6928 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ian Paulsen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page was declined and needs to be rewritten but I need more specific advice for why they believe it reads like an advertisement. I thought I provided third party sources. Ss6928 (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ss6928 I fixed your link(you need the "Draft:" portion). Awards do not contribute to notability unless the awards themselves merit articles(like Nobel Peace Prize or Academy Award). The draft reads much like a resume, it documents his work and accomplishments, but does not describe what independent reliable sources say makes him a notable academic or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 06:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my link! And for your advice. Let me try again. Ss6928 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonatondash920 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Noritan Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please approve mu article page... Sonatondash920 (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatondash920 Fixed your link(you need the "Draft:" portion) but your draft was thorougly promotional and has been deleted. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves like social media is, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi,

I created a profile for Tsuriel Sdomi with many citations and references, but it was not accepted. He is a very important person in his city and country.

What can I do to get it accepted?

Thank you. Tsurielsdomi (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tsurielsdomi: have you read the decline notice? It gives the reasons why I declined this, which therefore are the things you need to work on.

Similarly, have you read any of the messages posted on your talk page User talk:Tsurielsdomi, starting with why you shouldn't be writing about yourself at all, and why copying content from other sources is not allowed? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Editorialalex (talk · contribs)
  • Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I have made some changes to this article with the help of Nnev66‬, and I would like to get a second opinion before I submit it for review a second time. Does the article as it stands now contain enough in-depth, reliable, independent secondary sources? Editorialalex (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Editorialalex, we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk. You will get a full assessment of your draft when you submit it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it! Thank you. Editorialalex (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Xeimen129 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Xeimen129/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My wikipedia article about age of history games keeps getting declined only because i dont have enough primary review sources and i cant find any because no one has made a serious review of the game so i resort to using steam reviews please help. IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeimen129: you have resubmitted this draft for another review, and will get an assessment sooner or later. In the meantime, did you have a question you wanted to ask?

If there aren't sufficient appropriate sources to establish notability, then that most likely means that the subject simply isn't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used mutable steam reviews on one statement to try to state the majority opinion of the bugs and criticisms in the game IamNotTheRealStevenWalling (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steam reviews are utterly unusable (no editorial oversight), just like any other sort of user review. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• RebeccaM226 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Henri Struck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Regarding reliable sources for a musician, which are the sites are considered as reliable sources for music release ? Because the reviewer said that discogs.com neither imdb are accepted. The proof of work of Henri Scars Struck is on many of these places. Otherwise the only thing left is screen capture the records ? RebeccaM226 (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaM226: user-generated sources are not regarded as reliable. This includes IMDB, Discogs, Vimeo and YouTube (depending on the channel/publisher), and indeed Wikipedia itself. Nearly half of your draft's citations are to such sources.

You also have a lot of content that isn't supported by any sources, which is a problem in itself, especially in articles on living people (WP:BLP).

If you cannot find reliable sources to support the information, then it must be removed.

Having said all that, I will slightly qualify this by saying that the reverse of the old adage that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is that if you're making completely non-contentious (and purely factual) statements, such as the title and year of release of an album, you may get away with supporting them with the likes of Discogs. But that's only in very limited cases, and otherwise your referencing needs to be pretty much faultless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Greghenderson2006 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Lewis Josselyn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User SafariScribe has declined my article saying "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." However, he does not say what sources are not reliable. The history says: "Submission is improperly sourced (AFCH)" I have no idea what to change or do. I've sent SafariScribe a message but there has been no reply. It is very frustrating to have an article rejected for a vague reason. Do you agree? Greg Henderson (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006: as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and some editors like occasionally to do other things in their life. Given that SafariScribe declined this less than 24 hrs ago, maybe give them a bit more time to respond? Wikipedia is not edited to a deadline, after all.

And yes, I get how it may be frustrating that we have to use templates when processing drafts, but there's no way around that, really. With thousands of pending drafts in the system, things would grind to a halt completely if we had to write each decline reason individually. But I get your point that it's difficult to improve your referencing if you're not sure which bit of it requires improvement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006 Let's look at some of your sources, but not in huge quantity or detail. I'll take the first few:

• https://museum.nps.gov/ParkORet.aspx?pS=Lewis%20Josselyn%26db%3Dobjects%26dir%3DCR%20SAFR# verifies that he exists, not that he has notability. That's ok if others verify notability
• https://collections.montereyart.org/objects-1/info/3187?sort=0 is one of his pictures. Please consider why you have used this as a reference
• http://pgmuseum.pastperfectonline.com/photo/30032540-9C66-4217-B0E8-772168441572 is a 404 error
• http://www.adc-exhibits.museum.ucsb.edu/items/show/914 is a photograph. Please consider why you have used this as a reference

I'll stop after the first four. What I see is a slew of references that do not verify notability. This starts to explain "submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." and shows thaty tyhe calibre of referencing you are using is illustrative rather that for verification of notabilityy. Granted, you may have improved on this lower down the list.

Let me remind you as many of us have explained to you more than once:

We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.

What you need to do is to go down 100% of your references and compare them with the indented paragraph. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, thanks for your comments! Below is my reply to your comments:

• Collection at the San Francisco Maritime Museum
• Collection at the Monterey Museum of Art
• Collection at Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History, which is temporallary offline. I have contacted the webstie and it should be up soon.
• Collection at the Art, Design & Architecture Museum

The reason for this list of collections is to show notability per WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, Josselyn has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Three of the Secondary reliable sources include:

• Jennie V. Cannon. "Lewis Josselyn (1883-1964)" (PDF). Traditional Fine Arts Organization: Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists. p. 460. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
• Hiller, Peter (April 20, 2021). The Life and Times of Jo Mora: Iconic Artist of the American West. Gibbs Smith. pp. viii, xi, 144, 186, 193–196, 203, 294, 305. ISBN 978-0-692-05342-3. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
• "Back to the Drawing Board with Artist Jo Mora" (PDF). Monterey History and Art Association. LII (3). Monterey, California. 2003. Retrieved 2023-11-13..

I appreciate your help and will review my references again. I would be happy to remove any uncessary sources to get this to pass the review process. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greghenderson2006 The picture collections show that the subject is a photographer. They might be useful to demonstrate that fact because it is not susceptible to challenge, but they cannot be said to demonstrate not verify notability. I would minimise the use of those, using the fewest and best.

Why?

Because you need to major on what is recorded as being said by others in multiple reliable sources independent of him and about him.

What I think you have done is started with what you wish to say and struggles to make references fit. This phenomenon is called WP:BACKWARDS, is an easy trap to fall into and it to be avoided.

Instead, look at references and what they say. Marshall what they say into a storyboard, and, using your own words entirely, craft the draft from the storyboard. The references then fall into place. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that was deleted by community consensus after an extensive AfD discussion and a good example of WP:AMOUNT and in my opinion, it's a recreation of an article deleted by consensus. Graywalls (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls It is clear that this draft, as written and referenced, cannot pass. I have examined further references though not all and they are useless in verifying notability. A reference search by @Greghenderson2006, and a total rewrite based only of refs that stand up to scrutiny might prove notability and might pass. This draft has no future, and is in danger of becoming a time sink. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A rewrite is underway based on reliable sources. There are several secondary sources that pass WP:BASIC and demonstrate the contributions he made. His work is held in several museums and online collections. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is suggestive that perhaps Greg's interpretation of notability doesn't quite line up with general consensus. "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 28.6% of AfD's were matches and 71.4% of AfD's were not." Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Harrytone (talk · contribs)
  • Motor Rifle Troops (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Motor Rifle Troops (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My AFC was rejected for the reason "submission is improperly sourced". Without specific guidance I don't know how to fix this, as I feel it meets the standards as the basis for an article to be expanded on, and that the sources provided are reliable for the information given. Harrytone (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrytone: As a fair warning, this draft falls into a contentious topic (Eastern Europe and the Balkans). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We had a discussion with an editor about the category to use for this individual. Thinking either it should be the general notability, or #musician. I later found he was nominated for latin grammy so it could meet WP:NMUSICIAN #8. Can you take a look? The individual is in many charts, made music for many big figures, but mostly behind the scenes, so was hard to find any coverage. J2009j (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2009j: NMUSICIAN refers to musicians (individual or ensemble), whereas you describe this person as "music producer, songwriter, and DJ". I also don't know if that Latin Grammy nomination satisfies #8. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. 8 - Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Note that this requires the person or band to have been the direct recipient of a nomination in their own name, and is not passed by playing as a session musician on an album whose award citation was not specifically for that person's own contributions. J2009j (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Added category 8 here, for people to read. I believe Latin Grammy and Grammy are two main grammy awards there are. The songs he producer received Grammys, and have been nominated for Grammys- but I assume that would be a different thing.

   Or perhaps, we can go with the general notability in this case? J2009j (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   My point was that Latin Grammy != Grammy. And for clarity, I'm not saying this doesn't satisfy #8; only that I don't know if it does. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Me too. So that is why I am asking here. This is what I found on wikipedia.

   The concept of a separate Grammy Awards for Latin music began in 1989. According to organizers, the Latin Grammy Awards was established as the Latin music universe was deemed too large to fit on the Grammy Awards. The Latin Recording Academy defines Latin music as music in Spanish or Portuguese.Latin Grammy Awards#:~:text=The concept of a separate,music in Spanish or Portuguese. J2009j (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Also adding criteria #2 with his song on the Billboard Chart ( #1 on Billboard K-Pop Hot 100). https://www.festground.com/articles/afsheen-min-jiryuh/534 J2009j (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @SafariScribe Can you take a look? You were among those who declined it. J2009j (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• GreenAppleClimber (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:DraftSight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am having trouble getting this draft published. It has been rewritten and resourced multiple times. I believe it to be well sourced, from independent parties, and the firm itself is notable and of similar importance to many current live articles - but I understand that this is not agreed upon.

Is there someone I can submit this draft to get active help from the community rather than yes or no approvals. Thank you very much for your time. GreenAppleClimber (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenAppleClimber: this software being published by a notable developer doesn't mean anything, as notability is not inherited by association. And as for comparing this to other articles that may be out there (the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument), this isn't how drafts are assessed; we evaluate them with reference to the relevant policies and guidelines.

You can ask questions about the AfC review process right here at the help desk, or general editing questions at the Teahouse or the Help desk. You can of course also ask directly the individual reviewers who declined this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing thanks for the clarification on this! I appreciate your attention to detail and polite response. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a great reference, thanks for clearing that up. The reason the article was declined was:

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified."

I guess I would ask @SafariScribe, could you point out a few sources and the problems they possess? I'm trying my best to find independent sources, and believe the ones I've provided to have more than mere passing mention, third-party separation, and verifiable content. (I don't expect you to list all of them, and want to be considerate of your time- but I'm struggling to find the reason for rejection). I could use some help with this article. Thanks everyone! GreenAppleClimber (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BWHY (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Misha Charoudin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My article was rejected as the references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. I understand that a lot of my references are from the subject themself, but I have also included a lot of external references from other companies and news sources. Is someone able to help highlight where it may that I should find more external sources for a particular area for my article to be more likely to be approved, please? BWHY (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BWHY: it's debatable whether this is "your article"; it's not an article at all, only a draft, and it seems to have been created and extensively worked on by someone else, until you took over some ten days ago. How did that come about, just out of curiosity?

When you did take it over and edited it, you left a comment saying "Re-write of the page, including better citations from Misha himself rather than news outlets". That's pretty much the exact opposite of what we want. We have no interest in the subject telling the world about themselves, and instead very much want to hear what neutral and disinterested third parties have to say. Up to that point the draft had a few questionable sources like YouTube etc., but mostly it seemed reasonably well referenced. Now I'm struggling to find any good ones at all.

And no, it's not a case of "finding more external sources", it's rather a case of getting rid of a lot of the ones that are there already. Firstly, we don't want 48 (!) mostly flaky sources (see WP:REFBOMB), we want a small number of solid ones. We also don't want poor-quality sources supporting anything, because any content allegedly supported by poor sources isn't actually supported at all.

You need to find a few sources that clearly and unquestionably meet the WP:GNG standard, namely reliable and independent secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) that have provided significant coverage of the subject. You summarise (in your own words, but without putting any additional 'spin' on things) what they have said, citing each source against the information it has provided. And that's about it, no need for those countless YouTube links, or peacocky nonsense like the 'Personal Philosophy' section. And please write in a neutral, factual manner, this is an encyclopaedia, not a gossip magazine.

You have a lot of work to do. I can't promise that will get this approved, but it will at least make it more likely to be approved, which is what you asked for. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N Deleted G11. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]