• Blitzite2 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Class of '09 (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's hard to get in-depth sources when it hasn't been professionally reviewed a lot. The game has received a lot of critical acclaim, with $1M of revenue approximately. Blitzite2 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It likely doesn't merit an article, then- reviews are usually how games/films/books etc, merit articles. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Blitzite2. Revenue is irrelevant. Critical acclaim is relevant - provided it is published in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thehistorianisaac (talk · contribs)
  • 7th Marine Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:7th Marine Brigade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently a fellow editor(@User:Buckshot06) already helped me publish my draft as Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps). May I ask what will happen to the draft? P.S. I turned 7th Marine Brigade into a redirect to Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts get deleted automatically if they are not edited in six months.

If you are the only editor who has worked on a draft, you can request its deletion by pasting {{db-author}} at the top; but other editors have worked on Draft:7th Marine Brigade, so that option is not available in this case. You can request its deletion at WP:MFD, but it's probably not worth it for a draft. I do suggest you withdraw it from review though, so as not to take up a reviewer's time. You can simply remove th most recent e {{afc submission}} template from the top. ColinFine (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the draft was technically never reviewed? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thehistorianisaac: this draft was reviewed, and declined, once, on Nov 29; but not reviewed again since your resubmission a few days later. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically it was never re-reviewed

Doesn't really matter because in the end it was published anyways but yeah Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was awaiting new review. We currently have c 1,800 pending drafts in the system, with wait times up to 8 weeks or so. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok understood

Removed the review banner and added a comment saying that it is already published Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mohan1357 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mohan Kumar (academic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please kindly assist in working on my article for publication on wikipedia page Mohan1357 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan1357 Hello, Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Please see the message left by the reviewer as to what needs to be done; we're not here to be co-editors, just to give advice. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brown Balloons (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bro MONROW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft page has been rejected by one of the editors. I already provided factual information and reliable sources. Brown Balloons (talk) 10:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seems that this person is not notable as Wikipedia defines a notable person. This is why it was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello,

I could use a live walk-through on how to edit a few things. Am having trouble with my first article. Lorenzo Lwanga (talk) 13:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Lorenzo Lwanga. Most people who try to create an article as the first thing they do on Wikipedia (or nearly the first) have trouble with their article.

My earnest advice to new editors is to not even think about trying to create an article until you have spent several weeks - at least - learning about how Wikipedia works by making improvements to existing articles. Once you have understood core policies such as verifiability, neutral point of view, reliable, independent sources, and notability, and experienced how we handle disagreements with other editors (the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle), then you might be ready to read your first article carefully, and try creating a draft. If you don't follow this advice but try to create an article without this preparation, you are likely to have a frustrating and disappointing experience with Wikipedia.

Specifically about your draft: like most people who haven't spent time learning how Wikipedia works, you have written your draft BACKWARDS. First find your sources - and make sure they meet the triple criteria in WP:42. Then, if you have enough sources, forget everything that you know personally about the subject, and write a summary of what the sources say about them. ColinFine (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nandy Movies (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bhaggyolokkhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have made edits to my article, provided sources, and references, my article has not yet been accepted. I don't understand why . I request clarification please help me. Nandy Movies (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nandy Movies: presumably we're talking about  Courtesy link: Draft:Bhaggyolokkhi? It hasn't been accepted, because it is very poorly referenced, and therefore provides no evidence that the subject is notable, either per WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Unreleased films hardly ever are notable, so you should probably wait until the film has come out and received some reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nandy Movies As an unreleased film, it is likely too soon for there to be an article about it. Press releases do not contribute to our notability criteria for films. Wait for some in-depth coverage from reliable film critics before re-submitting. qcne (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Judging by your username, you have a conflict of interest in this subject. That needs to be disclosed. I have posted instructions on your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Candus76 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Thanjavur K. Ponnaiya Pillai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm translating a wikipedia page (https://ta.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/தஞ்சை_க._பொன்னையா_பிள்ளை) and I have added the same sources added there, but my request to turn it into an article is denied because I need more references (which I don't have). What do I do? Candus76 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Candus76. Each language Wikipedia project is different, with different policies and guidelines. The English Wikipedia has the strictest reference requirements out of all the various language projects.

If those sources do not meet our criteria for inclusion, and there are no other sources to be found (remember, you can use offline sources as long as they are published and you provide a full citation) then I am afraid the topic does not merit an article on the English Wikipedia at this time. qcne (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright, thank you for clearing that up so fast! I'll try searching for more sources :) Candus76 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck - as long as the sources are published and accessible to a reader (even via an offline library or archive) then it is okay to use. qcne (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Artennina (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Roeland Hendrikx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could you please tell me detailed what I should do? I ám a decent person who has the best intentions with this article and I only wat the best for it! Only the sometimes written comments (as English is not my mother language) are not easy to understand. Please give us another moment. Artennina (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not fixed the issues identified by reviewers, including not disclosing your conflict of interest. Your references do not establish that this person meets our definition of a notable musician. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightningbox14 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Cough Code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

why was it rejected was it too short Lightningbox14 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightningbox14: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• DesertMouse26 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shokz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there - this article was submitted for review and it wasn't accepted. The listed reason was that "the draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." I see that there's an existing page on the same subject in Japanese (https://ja.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Shokz). Does that serve as proof that this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article? DesertMouse26 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because different Wikipedias have different policies. What matters is if our policies are met. 331dot (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Henrilebec (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gerald L. Burke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Notability question It's not clear why scientific notability is different from say "celebrity" notability. My submission for medical technologies includes independent cites in scientific journals, but the Wikipedia article reviewer says this is insufficient to establish "notability". It's not clear why cites in scientific journals are insufficient to establish notability. It seems to me that such cites, sufficient in scientific journals, are not sufficient for Wikipedia. Henrilebec (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec I don’t think the issue here is whether the journals are reliable so much as independent as they are written by the subject. The standard for a person such as this is WP:NACADEMIC. Things like citation index and special awards or academic positions are used to indicated notability, otherwise we need to see articles about him not from him to establish notability. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a link to your draft in the header as intended. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what's not clear. The articles cited are not by Burke, they are about Burke's scientific research projects. The work of Burke and his team were vetted and published by independent scientific journals (Harvard Medical School. Journal of Neurosurgery, Canadian Medical Journal, Departments of Pathology and Surgery,Harvard Medical School,and the Neurosurgical Service of The Children's Medical Center,Boston,Massachusettsetc). If Burke's name appears in the article, it is simply because he was the team leader responsible for assembling and recording the enormous amount of work of the various research teams. Otherwise, modern scientists are unable to understand where these discoveries were made. I could be wrong, but it appears to me that the Wikipedia reviewers are not familiar with older scientific journals that were responsible for vetting (and validating) this type of pioneering medical research. This, for example, was the first known instance of an engineering institution (Cal-Tech) engaging in innovative medical research. Can you provide some clarity for us? Henrilebec (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Henrilebec Ref 3 and 4 list Burke as an author, so valid to use as a supporting material for information but have no value in establishing notability. The age of the journals make no difference in how we assess, that being said many reviewers are not familiar with the specific WP:NACADEMIC as it is a more complex and dynamic policy then the more generally applied WP:GNG. So I am assuming you think they meet criteria 1 of the academic criteria, which may be the case, but I am also not comfortable in this standard enough to assess what a significant contribution to their field would be and how to prove it without cite bombing the article. In my attempts to look up a number of citations of his work I've been unable to get a feeling for this and it could be due to the age of the work in question. I will ping @WhatamIdoing here, as they are more familiar with this subject and maybe can provide more insight then I can. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 22:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For NACADEMIC questions, I always defer to David Eppstein. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to avoid debating the notability of medical academics because I do not really understand the citation patterns in those fields. I think User:JoelleJay may be a better choice for those fields, although she typically takes a harder line than I would. That said, Google Scholar was not promising; I only found one well cited publication, "The corrosion of metals in tissues; and an introduction to tantalum", not enough for WP:PROF#C1 even accounting for the likelihood that papers from that time period are less likely to be well cited today. The draft does not supply any evidence for notability other than through #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein, @Mcmatter, @JoelleJay I've looked at this with the jaded eye of a reviewer and the exhortation to "accept any draft where I feel that it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process."

I feel that it is on the right side, just, of the borderline, and would benefit from being edited in mainspace by the community. However, if accepted 'as is' there is no guarantee that my belief is correct.

Since it is being discussed in some detail here, what do we suggest the route forward to be? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping! I generally restrict myself to contemporary academics whose Scopus profiles are easier to normalize within a field—the completeness for many journals is just too spotty before ~2000, and predictably not a single article by Burke is indexed. Searching through his citations on GS, I'm really not seeing more prose coverage than expected for a monograph, just passing mentions that wouldn't count toward GNG, e.g. Tantalum is a biocompatible, relatively inert transition metal whose first reported use was as a component of surgical sutures by Burke in 1940[1]

Tantalum usage in the biomedical field dates back to the 1940s, when Burke successfully performed several pure tantalum implantations, i.e., skin, subcutaneous and tendon sutures, as well as several plates[2]

Burke, who was probably the first person in modern times to implant Ta, reports it as being highly resistant to various strong acids.[3]

The first reported use of Ta in medical devices dates back to 1940 as Burke1 used Ta wires for skin sutures and Ta plates for fracture fixation devices.[4]

NPROF asks us to evaluate scholarly impact within a broad subfield, so I'm not convinced his continued reference is evidence of such impact when it's only in a very niche sub-subfield and not particularly voluminous at that. JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 188.229.34.79 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Kılıbıklar ve Kıvırcık ve Korkusuz Kamber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

New 188.229.34.79 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft that is only an infobox won't be accepted due to lack of content. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 02:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]