Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2024 April 26

= April 26 =

01:23, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Boingit
Hi, I submitted this draft early, assuming that since the queue is months long, I could work on it for a few days improving references before anyone looked at it. I was surprised when I was warned that it could be deleted after hitting publish just the 2nd or 3rd time. Am I doing something wrong to work this way? I expect to be complete and ready for review in a few days. I believe drafts may be improved up to the time they're reviewed. Thanks! Boingit (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Boingit: just to make sure we're using the same terminology, when you're working on a draft and have made your edits, you click on the 'publish changes' button, which saves your edits. (It's only called 'publish' rather than 'save' to make the point that your edits will be publicly visible to everyone on the internet.) You can keep doing this as many times and for as long as you like.
 * When you feel that the draft is ready for publication, you click on the '(re)submit' button, which puts it into the pool of pending drafts, and a reviewer will at some point pick it up and assess it. You should obviously only submit your draft when you think it's ready, because the review can happen at any time, sometimes in a space of minutes, sometimes weeks or even months. (The system is not a 'queue', put rather a 'pool', as drafts are not reviewed in any particular order.)
 * Hope that makes sense. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this, @DoubleGrazing, I think I get it now. I'll keep polishing and publishing but won't re-submit until I've gotten it where I want it and answered all concerns. Boingit (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

03:08, 26 April 2024 review of submission by MusicSoundsGoodAgency
Need help with Citations. I read through the rules and have added some but I want to make sure this gets approved first before applying again. Looking for any help as this is my first article! MusicSoundsGoodAgency (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @MusicSoundsGoodAgency: we don't do pre-reviews here at the help desk, you will need to submit your draft to get it reviewed. That said, I can tell you already now that it will be declined, as there is far too much unreferenced information. Articles on living people must be comprehensively referenced, with every material statement, anything potentially contentious and all private personal details clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources. And speaking of reliable sources, a WordPress blog is user-generated and therefore not considered reliable, and Last.fm is actually deprecated and must not be cited. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

03:33, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 175.139.211.236
PLEASE REVIEW AGAIN 175.139.211.236 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

05:16, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 140.141.4.72
I am not sure as to why my article was rejected. 140.141.4.72 (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It wasn't rejected as such, but rather declined on the basis that an article on that subject already exists at General Zionists. Your draft was replaced with a redirect to that article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

06:25, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy"
hello, I'm seeking help due to my article being declined for reliable sources. I'm also new to creating. Juicee Bub &#34;Dat Country Boy&#34; (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Juicee Bub "Dat Country Boy": your draft is entirely unreferenced. Even if you 'know' this information to be true (seeing as you're writing about yourself), we can only accept information backed up by reliable published sources.
 * And speaking of writing about yourself, don't. See WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, and WP:YESPROMO for some of the many, many reasons why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

06:35, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Antwan123123
finished corrections Antwan123123 (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Antwan123123: okay, no need to announce it here, just resubmit the draft when you're ready... as indeed you have done.
 * I can tell you straight away, though, that it is insufficiently referenced, with a lot of unsupported biographical detail. Articles on living people (WP:BLP) have particularly strict referencing requirements, and need inline citations to reliable published sources to support pretty much every statement you make. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

07:39, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 102.90.42.133
Is this draft notable yet? 102.90.42.133 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. Please do not resubmit it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

08:50, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Manveerdulay
What do I need to add/edit in order for this page to get approved? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I rejected this back in November for it's totally inappropriate tone. If you have substantially changed the draft to cut out all the inappropriate text, let me know on my User Talk Page and I will have another look @Manveerdulay  Qcne  (talk)  08:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What exactly makes the tone totally inappropriate? Manveerdulay (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your properly rejected draft is a hagiography packed full of praise for the subject. It is an obvious and glaring violation of the Neutral point of view, which is a mandatory core content policy. It is utterly unacceptable for this encyclopedia, and you have been told to drop the matter. Please do so now. Cullen328 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read your own draft and also read our guidelines at WP:NPOV? I will extract the totally inappropriate sentences and words for you:
 * - renowned
 * - boasting
 * - artistic voyage
 * - extraordinary contributions
 * - profoundly shaped by her lively perspective on existence and her affinity
 * - discover delight in every instance, regarding each day as an occasion for jubilation
 * - literary endeavors
 * - immense joy in engaging with the splendor of the natural world via contemplative strolls and the contemplation of meandering clouds
 * - she channels her artistic inventiveness into abstract paintings, providing a display of her diverse skills
 * - odyssey
 * - diverse nations
 * - pivotal juncture
 * - evoked deep distress within her, simultaneously fortifying her bond with her cultural legacy
 * - She is highly regarded as an accomplished author, poet, and painter
 * - dedicated to fostering understanding among different faiths
 * - commitment to public service
 * - dedication to her faith
 * - recognized as a valuable resource
 * - impart the genuine essence
 * - heartfelt trans-creation of the teachings and grandeur of the Gurus reflects her genuine love and commitment
 * - eagerly anticipated narrative
 * - profound connection with Sikhi
 * - heartwarming experience
 * - comforting words and delightful illustrations
 * - loving and reassuring perspective on siblinghood
 * - beautifully portrays
 * - enriching their understanding
 * - playful approach
 * - embrace its endearing story and cultural richness
 * - beautifully illustrated chapters
 * - esteemed storyteller
 * - profound message of Guru Nanak
 * - appealing to readers of all ages
 * - deeply intrigued
 * - heartwarming tale
 * - cherishes the innocent and tender moments
 * - cherished ceremony of Dastar Bandi
 * - seamless blend of English and Panjabi
 * - captivating story and warm illustrations
 * - delight boys and girls
 * - entertaining and engaging manner
 * - Readers are often captivated by
 * - The book gracefully emphasizes
 * - esteemed institutions such as Yale
 * To be blunt, the draft needs a complete re-write. It is currently designed to promote Inni Kaur and ellict emotions from the reader; this is prohibited on Wikipedia. @Manveerdulay  Qcne  (talk)  09:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Though I will apologise, @Manveerdulay, for not answering your question on your User Talk Page back on the 09 November. I was not notified of your question there. Hopefully my answer above answers it.  Qcne  (talk)  09:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

11:29, 26 April 2024 review of submission by 2.87.17.180
Hello,

I need specific information of HOW I'm able to make this article go live. The references I added are legit interviews of the band and everything in the article is based on facts being online. Is it that I added the references wrong or the actual references are assumed to be invalid?

Please let me know step by step what I have to fix!

Thank you in advance, Anestis Nine 2.87.17.180 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Remember to log in when posting. Interviews contribute nothing to notability, as an interview is not an independent source.  Any article about this band must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the band, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable band. Please see the advice left by the reviewer(specifically that all external links in the body of the text be removed).  If you need help with referencing, see Referencing for beginners.
 * Do you have a particular need to have this article be "live"? 331dot (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I understand, but includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media. What are the particular needs to have an article live? It's a biography and reliable information about a band and current status of them. I already changed references and added more and specific links for everything in the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I will ask more directly- do you work for or are otherwise associated with this band? 331dot (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes but that has nothing to do with the article. Anestis Nine (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with it- if you work for them, the Wikipedia Terms of Use require you to make a formal paid editing disclosure. If you are just associated with them, you must make a conflict of interest disclosure.
 * You have embarked on the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- write a new article- and having a conflict of interest/paid relationship makes it even harder. Wikipedia is not a place for a band to tell the world about itself(either directly or through a representative).  We want to know what others say about them and how they meet the definition of a notable band. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you personally take this image with your own camera as you are claiming? 331dot (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I just read the links you shared and I understood (mostly) how it should work and what is wrong in it.
 * I guess my information are not enough (For example that one photo is not with my camera but a friends so that should be clearly referenced) on it. Also I didn't knew that if you have any Association with the reffered-to is something invalid for Wikipedia) Anestis Nine (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So one of the next edits you make should be to make the needed disclosure on your user page(User:Anestis Nine).
 * If you are saying you took the image with your friend's camera, that's okay. What really matters is who the photographer was- mentioning the camera just serves to emphasize that.
 * Let's try it this way. What are the three(and only three, please) best sources you have that provide significant coverage of this band and are not interviews, press releases, mere announcements, brief mentions, or primary sources? 331dot (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I completely understand that. Nothing difficult to refer as is not an unknown person or else.
 * I think there are only interviews (which contribute nothing to notability) and articles with QA interaction with the band. Or articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media (such music, or video music etc.) or social events(such us live shows / tours etc) that have being refereed from online magazines or articles/ authors.
 * Is any of the above suitable for the 3 sources you need? Anestis Nine (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was referring to more specific sources(the actual news stories or what have you) but that's okay; interviews do not contribute to notability as it is by definition the subject speaking about themselves, which is not an independent source. Documentation of events or of the existence of the band's music(like music videos) in an of itself does not contribute to notability because that is not significant coverage.
 * You refer to "articles that an author took information personally from the band or uploaded media"; if these authors chose on their own to write about the band, and discuss how it meets the definition of a notable band, that could work, but we would need to know specifically what those sources are.
 * I might suggest that you examine some articles about bands/musicians(The Beatles, Metallica, Fleetwood Mac, Billy Joel, etc.) to get an idea of what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

12:23, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Boingit
Hi Folks, I created this draft article after reading a biography of the subject and being astonished he didn't have a wikipedia entry. It seems someone had created one but it was low-quality and was deleted. I resurrected some of the text, threw lots out, created some new, and provided many references (I'm working on more now). I have not yet cited the bio that I read that started me off, and as @Notcharizard has noted, there is no ref for where his "overall story" comes from. What's the best way to do that? Should I say in the beginning that he was the subject of a biography and simply cite the book there? Boingit (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. We accept offline cites as readily as we accept online ones, provided you give us enough information that we could look the information up in a library that has a copy of the book. (We need, at minimum: Book title, author, publisher, year of publication, page numbers, and either the ISBN or OCLC number.) —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  AE thread summaries 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

14:21, 26 April 2024 review of submission by James Middieton
I couldn't find a reason why my Article was declined, I am wondering why. I also added some more info too. James Middieton (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @James Middieton really? You can see no reason why your draft was (correctly) rejected? None at all? Does it look like an encyclopaedic article to you?  Qcne  (talk)  14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't accept what amounts to stories. We're an encyclopaedia project, and we (and our readers) have no use for inspirational stories like this. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  AE thread summaries 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ColinFine (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

16:11, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Jmparthage
Hi, I'm wondering why my submission was rejected. This is a popular music YouTuber (over 300,000 subscribers), who also has created a very popular piece of music software (DecentSampler). It seems odd that neither they nor the software they created has a page. It says the references don't show significant coverage, but I provided 9 articles, all of which are about different projects, software, and videos that Hilowitz has worked on. The articles are by independent authors and publications. The rejection also states that the biography reads more like an advertisement. On the contrary, I actually think it's actually pretty scant as I stuck only to facts directly mentioned in the articles. I'm hoping this entry will get the ball rolling and more people will be able to fill in details as they become available. Jmparthage (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted.
 * The number of subscribers is not relevant, as that is not in the notability criteria. You did a nice job of telling what he does, but not what makes him notable according to independent reliable sources. Who considers him influential? What is his influence? Do others emulate him? Things like that. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. That's an interesting challenge. I frequently see his work mentioned in Youtube videos made by other creators in the "music Youtube" space, but I'm not sure how to provide that as evidence of notoriety? Jmparthage (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Notability, not "notoriety"(which has a more negative connotation). YouTube is itself not generally acceptable as a source, because anyone can post anything there without editorial oversight and fact checking. You'll need things like news reports or professional critiques/reviews of his work that describe what makes him important as a YouTuber. 331dot (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the software makes him notable, it doesn't yet have an article. Probably he could be mentioned in such an article, but not a standalone one. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

16:22, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Mfmq67
My submission was declined and I am having trouble trying to fix the issues with it. Do you have any recommendations on what I can do ? Mfmq67 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You did a nice job telling about what he does, but not what makes him a notable person. Many people give to charities and found businesses; is there something particular about him that makes him stand out among the 8 billion humans on this planet? 331dot (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * We can't use https://about.me/gregdeline (no editorial oversight) and even if we could it's useless for notability (connexion to subject).
 * Everything on the https://www.gregdeline.com/ domain is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
 * https://www.downtowncomo.com/greg-deline/ is 404-compliant. (I get shown a splash page stating "There has been a critical error on this website".)
 * https://ideamensch.com/greg-deline/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview with non-substantial lede.
 * https://issuu.com/insidecolumbia/docs/march22-sized/s/14987766 is borderline at best and more likely useless for notability (connexion to subject). The entire section in him is 90% Stuff He Says.
 * https://comomag.com/2018/08/30/greg-deline/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). COMO Magazine is an arm of COMO Marketing, which is a PR/marketeer service.
 * We can't use https://tlclender.com/greg-deline/ (unknown provenance, online marketplace). No author is listed for the text, and this appears to be a moneylender's website.
 * https://cafnr.missouri.edu/stories/a-new-partnership/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is about UoM and DeLine Holdings collaborating on a research centre, and says practically nothing about DeLine other than quoting him.
 * We can't use https://gregdelineunitedway.com/ (too sparse, connexion to subject). If you intend to cite the YouTube video, we can't use it (unknown provenance). We can only cite YouTube directly and only if (1) the video was created by an outlet we would regard as having editorial oversight and (2) that video was uploaded to that outlet's verified channel.
 * https://www.hwhrescue.org/greg-deline is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Blurb from an organisation he works for.
 * None of your sources are usable. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  AE thread summaries 16:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

17:25, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Baileyirelan
Hi there, I would like to know a few specific reasons why this article was rejected. I do believe it has sufficient third-party sources discussing it, and that is the only reason I can find that it was declined. Thanks in advance. Baileyirelan (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?
 * The draft was rejected for the exact reason stated- the subject is not sufficiently notable. You only wrote about the routine business activities of the company; this does not establish notability. 331dot (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok that is good to know. To be notable enough, what coverage do I need to link rather than the routine business activities? Baileyirelan (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have a conflict of interest or are a paid editor with regards to this subject?
 * You need independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic- coverage that goes beyond merely telling what the company does and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, how it meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

18:11, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Tronmajesteetiline
How do I make it publishable Tronmajesteetiline (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We don't publish vandalism. 331dot (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

20:19, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Iamjakhar
how to rewrite? Iamjakhar (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid no rewrite is possible, the draft has now been deleted as promotion. Wikipedia is not for telling about yourself, please read the Autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

20:31, 26 April 2024 review of submission by CrSb0001
Reason that the page was declined says that it needs multiple resources that are in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject.

So do I need to add references that meet all 4 criteria, or could I include multiple references for one particular thing that overall meet all 4 criteria altogether?

CrSb0001 (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Each reference needs to meet those criteria; what you describe would be original research. 331dot (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In addition to 331dot's point, note that talking about "adding references" indicates that you have written the article BACKWARDS (as most people do who try to create an article without first learning about crucial ideas like notability and reliable sources). First find your sources (and check that each one meets the criteria in 42); then, if you have found the sources, forget anything you may know about the subject and write a summary of what the sources say. Otherwise you risk disappointment, frustration, and wasting a lot of your effort. ColinFine (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

21:57, 26 April 2024 review of submission by IIlIlIl
What needs done to this to get it approved? IIlIlIl (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Draft:Pennington Family IIlIlIl (talk) 22:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have submitted it for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

22:02, 26 April 2024 review of submission by Johnnydeadline
I need to know how I can appeal a rejection to a higher authority. I have removed the offending sources and recast the proposed Wiki with new sources, but admins are relying on an error when rejecting this Wiki. They keep telling me that this Wiki is based on Forbes.com sources. But it is not. The content I cite is published in Forbes MagazineWikipedia (WP:FORBESCON) is confusing Forbes Magazine with Forbes.com. It is incorrectly disallowing all stories related to Forbes because Forbes.com publishes some sponsored content. First, Forbes.com is NOT all sponsored content. Some of it is, and some of it is not. Other stories are exact replicas of what appears in the magazine, Forbes. For some reason, wikipedia is disallowing anything that is published that references Forbes. I am sourcing Forbes magazine, not Forbes.com. The Forbes Magazine content is produced and edited by journalists, not by advertisers and marketers. I would like to appeal that this content be allowed as a source. Can you help me? Wikipedia needs to changes its notes related to Forbes and Forbes.com since the people who are disallowing Forbes content do not understand the difference. Thank you, JohnnyDeadline Johnnydeadline (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Johnnydeadline (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
 * There is no "higher authority" here. First, you should raise your concerns with the reviewers. If they are misinterpreting guidelines, then we can discuss that here. 331dot (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
 * We can't use https://www.forbes.com/lists/list-directory/#474327c5b274 (too sparse). Forbes lists are usually terrible sources anyhow as they amount to non-exclusive awards, with or without the contributor issue.
 * https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2008/02/18/focus1.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no discussion of Shook.
 * https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/april-2008/many-happy-returns/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). It quotes and attributes Shook frequently, but at no point is he actually discussed.
 * https://www.virginiabusiness.com/article/stay-calm-and-carry-on/ is a non-sequitur (and wouldn't even be usable for notability for his firm).
 * Why does Reference 5 cite Wikipedia and not the actual interview? Not that it matters; you're writing on R.J. Shook, not Robert.
 * Anything R.J. Shook writes, films, commissions, says, semaphores, interpretive-dances, etc. is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
 * We can't use https://www.inc.com/magazine/19820801/3287.html (too sparse). If this was intended to be another book cite, then unless that book discusses R.J. - and the title leads me to believe it doesn't - it's useless as a source.
 * https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/contributor/robert-l-shook/?lens=hachette-books is a non-sequitur. I'm going to be very blunt here: Coverage of Robert L. Shook cannot be used to source the article on R.J. Shook. (Not that this would be usable even for Robert (connexion to subject).)
 * Reference 9 is missing required bibliographical information (page numbers).
 * https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2000/200011/200011pap.pdf is a non-sequitur and even if it weren't it's useless for notability (gov't document).
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1994/07/03/the-golden-years/015e3520-fbd1-4e58-a49c-78032e44b217/ is a non-sequitur.
 * Reference 14 is missing required bibliographical information (article title, article byline, page numbers)
 * https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2007/07/23/focus2.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Quoted, but never discussed.
 * https://www.rrstar.com/story/news/2008/01/15/ameriprise-advisors-honored/44731186007/ is useless for notability (wrong subject). Article is about people who his firm has honoured and does not discuss Shook in any capacity.
 * We can't use https://www.wealthmanagement.com/news/registered-representative-magazine (too sparse). The link provided points to links to two separate stories; you need to cite the story you're actually trying to cite and not what is essentially a landing page for them.
 * https://www.investmentnews.com/industry-news/news/are-you-tops-14984 is useless for notability (too sparse). Discussion of Shook in this article is cursory and throwaway, not significant.
 * https://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2008/09/22/daily38.html is useless for notability (wrong subject). This is about Shook's firm being acquired and does not discuss Shook in any capacity.
 * We can't use https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=SHOOKRESEARCH%20L150001534130&aggregateId=flal-l15000153413-0ad52578-8c27-4fd1-b2a1-29ee9fbced2f&searchTerm=SHOOK%20Research%20LLC&listNameOrder=SHOOKRESEARCH%20L150001534130 (too sparse) and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (gov't document). Content-free profile on a Florida government website.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/rjshook/2024/01/09/methodology-best-in-state-wealth-management-teams-2024/?sh=5c0950212b6a is useless for notability even disregarding WP:FORBESCON (connexion to subject). Written by Shook.
 * The Forbes lists, as I mentioned above, are generally poor sources. These ones are made even worse by the fact they're missing required bibliographical information (page numbers) and links, making it difficult to actually locate the sources in the first place.
 * Reference 28 is, again, missing required bibliographical information (page numbers).
 * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/rob-magazine/article-canadas-2022-top-wealth-advisors/ is a non-sequitur.
 * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-advisor/top-advisors/article-how-canadas-top-women-wealth-advisors-are-chosen/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Written by Shook.
 * We can't use https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/buffett-tops-2014-forbes-ranking-of-biggest-u.s.-givers (unknown provenance) and even if we could it'd be useless for notability (too sparse). No byline, and Shook is only quoted, never discussed.
 * As with the other Forbes source Shook wrote, https://www.forbes.com/sites/rjshook/2019/11/20/methodology-behind-the-forbes-list-of-americas-top-50-givers-3/?sh=7cef41fb3e3d is useless for notability even disregarding FORBESCON (connexion to subject).
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2018/10/03/the-new-forbes-400-philanthropy-score-measuring-billionaires-generosity/?sh=4a4fd41d7e1d is a non-sequitur.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2022/09/27/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2022-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/?sh=14504e72a098 is a non-sequitur.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/?sh=7c40c3efeccc is - say it with me - a non-sequitur.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2013/11/18/the-50-philanthropists-who-have-given-away-the-most-money/?sh=bc151951f5a7 is useless for notability (too sparse). Quoted, not discussed.
 * The issue becomes very clear when you look at the list above - your sources are all unusable for one reason or another, mostly because they are written by him, treat him as background noise only capable of one-liners, or completely forget he exists. The decline looks very proper here, especially given our stricter sourcing standards for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  AE thread summaries 16:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

23:52, 26 April 2024 review of submission by All Write by Me
Hi there,

Respectfully asking for a more specific explanation of why this article does not meet the notability and/or other requirements. Mr. Miller has been featured, not just mentioned, in several independent publications which I took the time to cite. Is there anything I can change to gain a better chance of the article's acceptance? Thanks in advance, your help is very much appreciated. All Write by Me (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I fixed your link(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Much of the draft is unsourced, and the sources you do have aren't appropriate; Philanthropy impact is based on an interview with him, so is not independent. You did a nice job writing about his career and philanthropy, but not summarizing what makes him a notable person. If it's his philanthropy, we need sources that discuss that and say what his influence is. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that ColinFine (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)