Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1,031: Line 1,031:


[[User:Lathadoocti|Lathadoocti]] ([[User talk:Lathadoocti|talk]]) 11:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
[[User:Lathadoocti|Lathadoocti]] ([[User talk:Lathadoocti|talk]]) 11:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

== 11:55:42, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Lathadoocti ==
{{Lafc|username=Lathadoocti|ts=11:55:42, 13 July 2021|declined=Draft:Tevatel_-_Telecom_Software_Solutions_For_Modern_Business}}

I have added https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/356431/| for notability

[[User:Lathadoocti|Lathadoocti]] ([[User talk:Lathadoocti|talk]]) 11:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:55, 13 July 2021

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category — List (sorting)		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply — By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Shortcuts
Welcome to the Articles for Creation help desk

  • This page is only for questions about article submissions—are you in the right place?
  • Do not provide your email address or other contact details. Answers will be provided on this page.
  • Watch out for scammers! If someone contacts you saying that they can get your draft published for payment, they are trying to scam you. Report such attempts here.
Ask a new question
Please check back often for answers.
Skip to today's questions · Skip to the bottom · Archived discussions


July 7

02:09:04, 7 July 2021 review of submission by Emilbarr

This is a new editor on the page, so I removed all traces of previous submissions and started fresh. I found over 15 qualified independent sources and carefully rewrote the page - yet it was declined and said "no changes since prior submission?". Why is this the case?

Emilbarr (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emilbarr That's not exactly what was said. The reviewer said "no improvement", not no changes. Please review the decline message in the red box. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:24:15, 7 July 2021 review of submission by 197.48.190.172

Independent reliable sources in the article.197.48.190.172 (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. I'm curious as to how you located the draft, which isn't easy to do. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article met all criteria. --Leonleader (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: The subject in article is notability, and he don't need promotional. already there 9 Reliable sources independent, and all sources have an article in en.wikipedia. -102.44.106.86 (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a coordinated or at least mass effort to promote this actor. He does not seem to meet the relevant criteria and as such a draft about him will not be accepted at this time. There is nothing that you can do about this. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
331dot: Well, you look at the articles by intentions and guesses, and not with facts, notability and sources!! and have you see the draft now!?--102.44.106.86 (talk) 10:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It was rejected and then deleted as spam, which I have done again, and also protected against recreation. Please find another topic to write about, after learning more about the notability criteria. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The actor have article in all this Sources talk about him: Al-Wafd , Al-Masry Al-Youm , Verdens Gang , Justdial.com , Al-Dustour (Egypt) , Aliqtisadi , Akhbar el-Yom , Masrawy , El Watan News . and more! Delete this sources too if all don't have notability criteria like you say !!! - 102.44.106.86 (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources being notable does not mean that what they write about is automatically notable. Notability is not inherited. This man needs to meet the definition of a notable actor and it seems that he doesn't. Until he does, there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Do you believe that? Is this the real reason for rejection? Or being ali mansour attacked by one of the Steward alaa is the real reason. - Even if you accept it, he will ask delete it--102.44.106.86 (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what that means, but there is nothing more to do here. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:51:14, 7 July 2021 review of submission by MichaelJms

I've added more paragraphs and headings.

MichaelJms (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:04:24, 7 July 2021 review of draft by 2600:1700:2160:4A70:2480:88EF:7323:B6D9


What qualifies as reliable source ?

2600:1700:2160:4A70:2480:88EF:7323:B6D9 (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. TechnoTalk (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:21, 7 July 2021 review of draft by Loreal17


Loreal17 (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to block the person that goes by the name of "TheRoadIsLong" for stopping my article creation. I just started this yesterday, and he's trying to stop this. Somebody block him. I just want to work on this article without a douchebag posting lies and hacking it. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loreal17 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loreal17 (talk · contribs · logs) was blocked for 24 hours for making personal attacks. Curbon7 (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are not allowed to remove draft declines, and Theroadislong is not attempting to get the draft deleted; edit summaries like this are completely uncalled for. Your draft is presently undersourced. Her own website is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Allmusic is useless for notability (Too sparse); a track listing isn't going to have the information we're looking for. The Chestnut Hill Local source is malformed, but acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:51:40, 7 July 2021 review of submission by Jonivestal

Hello friends, I have written this article because I had been wanting to share Mr. Avinash Nanda's story to the world. Maybe he hasn't accomplished much like many other hotshot directors but he is still an inspiration to people like me. I took the liberty to pull out references wherever it was needed and posted it accordingly. Also, all the information has been sourced from the internet and collated in one article. Mid-Day newspaper is a credible newspaper from Mumbai, India and some major information came from it.

So please suggest what else I can do to further improvise this article so that it becomes eligible for publication. Your guidance is appreciated.

Thanks. Jonivestal (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this space and refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode's top table. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any questions? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The OdishaNewsTimes source loads for me – it is a very short (four sentences) notice, quite possibly a press release, about the upcoming release of the film Two Desires and a Dream. It only mentions Nanda's name in passing and does not support the information about the film in the article. In fact, I just realised that it contradicts the info about the release – the draft says 2016, the source says 2017 (or, rather, it says "on Friday", but it was published in 2017). --bonadea contributions talk 16:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:30, 7 July 2021 review of draft by Emily19911991


Hi, how many sources should I roughly be looking to aim for to cover the article before the person is considered to have a decent amount of coverage? When I compare my article to the articles Kate Shemirani and Mark Steele, my article only has a half a dozen fewer sources, but the former only came out of the woodwork during the pandemic, which is also the case with Darren Nesbit (although he was known in the fringe circle of those who think the Earth is flat).

I do believe that an article about Nesbit is important because he's notorious for spreading conspiracy theories and other misinformation about Covid-19 in recent times.

I don't want to submit for the article to be reviewed again until I know that the subject has got enough coverage using sources. Can anyone help me please?

Emily19911991 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emily19911991: In general, we look for three sources that are reliable, independent (no interviews, press relases or "sponsored" articles) and discuss the subject in some detail. See also WP:RSP for a list of sources that have been commonly discussed, and Wikipedia:Deprecated sources for a list of sources that are considered deprecated on Wikipedia and therefore must not be used, as well as Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Victor Schmidt. He's had lots of coerage with regard to his nonsense about the Earth being flat, should I focus on that aspect of him? What part of the draft needs to be improved do you think?--Emily19911991 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:59:44, 7 July 2021 review of submission by Rheta10


Rheta10 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for all the help thus far. I would like to know if this page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Lessard_Bissonette

is ready to link to another page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Maine_suffragists#Suffragists

Where the name Camille Lessard Bissonnette appears.

The page that is linked at present is not the above page which I would like to have linked.

Any assistance is appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheta10 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rheta10, I'm confused, which page is the link you want supposed to be on, Camille Lessard Bissonette or List of Maine suffragists#Suffragists. Curbon7 (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The lead page is List of Maine Suffragist which would link to Camille Lessard Bissonnette. I think it is ok now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rheta10 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:41:15, 7 July 2021 review of submission by هيثم ناشر


هيثم ناشر (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

هيثم ناشر, All submissions to the English Wikipedia must be in English. As the reviewers suggested, your submission may be more appropriate for the Arabic Wikipedia.
Google translate:
يجب أن تكون جميع الطلبات المقدمة إلى ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية باللغة الإنجليزية. كما اقترح المراجعون ، قد يكون إرسالك أكثر ملاءمة لـ ويكيبيديا العربية. Curbon7 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

22:45:34, 7 July 2021 review of submission by Plicabelles

Hi! I believe the article has cited major Macedonian news sources, like: https://macedoniatimes.news/stafan-markovski-stories-book-english/ https://www.slobodenpecat.mk/en/objavena-knigata-hiperbog-od-stefan-markovski/ https://mia.mk/stefan-markovski-s-poetry-published-in-international-anthology/?lang=en https://www.slobodenpecat.mk/en/objavena-knigata-potenczijalite-na-zhanrot-krimi-drama-preku-sczenarioto-za-igran-film-se-vikam-sloboda-od-stefan-markovski/ https://sitel.com.mk/knizhevni-nastapi-na-stefan-markovski-vo-shpanija https://makfax.com.mk/kultura/фауст-го-трча-плебејскиот-круг-од-с/ https://opserver.mk/kultura/eretichki-pisma-na-stefan-markovski-objaven-na-angliski-jazik/ https://www.novamakedonija.com.mk/zivot/kultura/стефан-марковски-на-книжевна-резиден/ https://www.novamakedonija.com.mk/tag/стефан-марковски/ There are hundreds of news articles on Markovski's literary works, mostly in Cyrillic, including ones in Bulgarian: http://evropaworld.eu/nosht-na-literaturata-sofiya-2019/ https://noshtnaliteraturata.com/book/eretichni-pisma-ili-namirajki-nebesata-koito-sijajat-v-cherveno/ https://www.geomedia.bg/zabavno/item/7529-нощ-на-литературата

Plicabelles (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

Request on 02:28:51, 8 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ShawnMayberry


Hi Wikipedia,

This former alderman has made history in the State of Illinois, passing the United States of America's first reparation bill in Evanston, Illinois. So I thought it would be great to get her featured here so that people can easily access this information about her.

I would like to know what needs to be done to have her added as an entry within Wikipedia.

Thanks!

Shawn Mayberry ShawnMayberry (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:37:01, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Dr Hibban


Mr Aafi as I recreated this draft, I don't know what's wrong in it why you are rejecting it as far as I know the mentioned person is notable more than the articles you had worked on so far you can check Google tho all apart you know this guy is already famous in your area too, can I say this is something personal thing with this person that's why you are rejecting the article ? BTW see you soon.

Dr Hibban (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Hibban The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further, because it appears that this person does not meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable photographer. Wikipedia is not just for telling about someone and what they do, it must be shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources that they are notable as defined by Wikipedia- which may be different than how you or I define it. Interviews with the subject do not establish notability, nor does announcements of their work. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(User: 331dot) Apologies I don't mean that but If we will go through the whole wikipedia's special definition a notable photographer. We can see there is clearly mentioned it makes a person notable if he has done something for the photography community like had published book, film or anything as we can see this person has individually Authored Two Books On Photography and so far about coverage he has enough coverage I guess there are lot of wiki articles of persons who just have one or two media coverages, I don't have any personal with this I don't seriously care about weather this article will be published or not but I guess it's not fair to neglect this article thank you.

331dot The article was deleted by community consensus on 31 March 2021, and the deleting admin JGHowes also salted it. There is nothing new and the community has already decided that the subject of this fails the notability criteria of the Wikipedia. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:33:40, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Esmeraldaemy


Esmeraldaemy (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For revision of the first rejection of Pahunkat: citations from independent sources were added. See citations: 4, 6, 7, 32, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55... For second revision of second rejection of LJF2019 and similar of Noah: peacock terms in previous version were already removed, replaced by neutral terms. Could reviewer SL93 or other reviewers of Wikipedia tell me why you think the issue has not yet been addressed?

@SL93: courtesy ping Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Esmeraldaemy: I was referring to "The external links should not go in the main body of the text." You have a lot of those. Please fix them. I was also referring to the Education section being unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:36:53, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Karthi346



Karthi346 (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karthi346: Your draft has been rejected, meaning reviewers don't intend on reviewing it again. Please read over WP:CITEHOW, zero of the "sources" used in the current draft are verifyable. In addition, Wikipedia isn't interested in what a subject wants to say about itself, only what other people who have not been feed by the subject have written in reliable sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:11:06, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Silentmessengers


Hello,

Thank you for keeping Wikipedia relevant and useful. However, I'm hoping for a re-review on this article or advice on what changes will help:

1) Relevant disclosures were made prior to posting. 2) Painstaking attempts have been made to keep the language, neutral and factual. 3) References from notable and eminent publications have been provided for facts.

Look forward to your response. Thanks! Silentmessengers (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Silentmessengers You are a paid editor. It is assumed that you can hit the ground running because you are earning money from this. Wikipedia is an amateur project. If your work was rejected it has been judged to be one that woudl never survive in mainspeace. `A reviewer has simply called a halt to this draft. Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. Just don't expect to be spoon fed by we amateurs who give our time freely buty to other amateurs
Since you are paid youi might as well get back om the horse. But first read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure again and make the correct disclosure on your user page. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:22:57, 8 July 2021 review of draft by 1.7.180.194


This help is requested to understand better as to why the draft wiki page for Dr. P.B. Salim was declined.

The reason given for declining the draft is passing mention about the subject in the quoted references. However, it is not mentioned that exactly which reference is being talked about. Most of the given references directly and elaborately mention about the subject. Therefore, it is very important to know which reference is being said to have a passing mention of the subject.

1.7.180.194 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft was accepted by reviewers Justiyaya 06:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:28:54, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Tommymul


Hi all. I recently submitted an article for a local amateur senior football club in Ireland - Newtown Rangers AFC. It was rejected this morning based off not having reliable/or any sources to back up the club's honours list. The issue is the online archive of such leagues and titles for Irish football is shockingly poor. All I have is the 60th Anniversary annual which has a complete list of all the club's honours since 1957 - 2017. It's printed and published locally but not online. I don't know what to do now. I can take a picture etc of the annual but I am unable to find an online location of it. It's really disappointing as this club is over 60 years old, has a great history but now I can't disclose the actual awards it has won. Any suggestions at all?

Tommymul (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tommymul Before expending too much energy please read WP:NFOOTBALL and only do further work if the club qualifies. If out does, non online sources are wholly acceptable as llmc as they are cited correctly so that an educated reader could find them if they so chose. 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. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have confused myself use WP:NCLUB instead FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:33:18, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Skelley4195

This page was edited by one of your editors, many thanks! I selected the button to request a review and was sent to a page to add a section with a Captcha and edit box etc. I do not wish to add a section. I completed the Captcha and selected Publish because those were the instructions on the page, but the page simply refreshed. I can't tell if the page has been submitted for review. Thank you for any guidance you can offer. Skelley4195 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Skelley4195 No idea whathappened, but I have submitted Draft:Vision Rehabilitation Therapist on your behalf in your name FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:39:59, 8 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Anna-Sara Reinisch


I would like to create a new Wikipedia page for the Baltic Forest Hiking Trail with more detailed information and pictures. There is some information about the trail on the Wikipedia page "E11 european long distance path". I think a new Wikipedia page is needed because the Baltic Forest Hiking trail is a part of the E11 path but still it is its own path. My new Wikipedia page about the Baltic Forest Trail has been taken away and I'm also involved in a COI now. How can I get out of this situation? I am not paid to write this article. I'm a volunteer and see a need for more detailed information with help of two different Wikipedia pages. If I for example would split the article "E11 european long distance path", into E11 European long distance path" and Baltic Forest Hiking Trail, how much of the information on the original page can be left without being duplicate?

Anna-Sara Reinisch (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Sara Reinisch, Don't worry about the COI warning, that's just someone had a suspicion there may have been a conflict of interest, but it seems you've cleared it up here.
Regarding the drafts (there are two mostly identical ones: Draft:Baltic Forest Hiking Trail and Draft:Baltic Coastal Hiking trail, firstly, even though they were declined, you still have access to them and can still resubmit them after you make improvements if you would like to. However, I agree with the reviewer that you have not yet presented enough reliable sources in either draft that proves that this should be a standalone article. I think it is much better right now as a section in E11 European long distance path, which is what the reviewer suggested. That being said, if you do provide considerable reliable sources, perhaps the determination may be made that it could function as a standalone article.
Also, please choose one of the two duplicate drafts and work only on that one. You can pick whichever you want, but having two duplicate drafts may cause confusion for both us and you. Curbon7 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:04:08, 8 July 2021 review of draft by Mynameisian


Mynameisian (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article i drafted is being rejected. i had tried to rewrite it to make it neutral. Is there anywhere else i should take note of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisian (talk • contribs) 13:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mynameisian: The first thing you should do is you should search for some independent, reliable sources that actually support your content, as verifyability is one of Wikipedia's core principles. If you can't find any, its time to stop, as anything else will be a waste of everyone's time. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:35:28, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 196.188.95.21


196.188.95.21 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:05:08, 8 July 2021 review of submission by AJTANDY


AJTANDY (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a page for review called BDS the truth and it was refused

Your draft here User:AJTANDY/sandbox/The Truth About BDS consists of three links to YouTube that is NOT what Wikipedia is for. Theroadislong (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:59:51, 8 July 2021 review of submission by GreenEli


Hi there,

Last month, I submitted my very first article for review. I went through the Wikipedia Adventure, used the Article Wizard, and, once I finally felt it was close to ready, reached out to some of the great folks on the live help chat IRC to get their thoughts before submitting the article for approval. I got some great feedback, and was told that it looked good to go. After a couple of weeks, I didn't see any activity on it, so I reached out to the live help chat IRC again to get some more input, after which I added some more details to the Career section.

I realize that there is a backlog of articles awaiting approval, so the process takes time, but the facts that the backlog is not simply a queue, and that the person about whom I wrote fits within a specific niche (biographies of living Orthodox Jewish singers) leaves me concerned that it may take longer than normal to be seen (or may not be seen at all out of a given reviewer's lack of interest in the topic). I am not worried that the person (Shlomo Simcha) not being notable, as there are plenty of other articles about other people within that niche (Benny Friedman, Mordechai Shapiro, Yaakov Shwekey), and his name even appears in some of them (e.g. Abie Rotenberg). It's just that I don't have a clue how popular that niche is with reviewers, and what that means for it being seen and eventually reviewed.

I believe that I've gone through this properly,, and that my article is of a good quality (or at least a good start). I also hope that this is the appropriate place for making this inquiry.

Thank you kindly,

GreenEli (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been accepted in the meantime. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Yes, I just noticed that as well! A reviewer took a look at it and made some comments. Then, after I asked for more details and advice on improving it, it seems they changed their mind, or maybe dug through my references some more? I still have a photo to add, which is awaiting copyright clearance, and I know there are a lot more details to add about Shlomo Simcha's charity work, collaborative work, and maybe something about the fact that he is often hired for private (corporate and personal) functions, but it's great to know that the effort I put in was worth it. I'm quite happy I got a Start-Class rating on it rather than a stub. Thank you to anyone and everyone who looked at this, and for however it got to the reviewer's attention! GreenEli (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:13:17, 8 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by ShawnMayberry


Hi Wikipedia,

Do you all think Alderman Simmons is worthy of a Wikipedia article for her passing the first reparations bill in America? Also, if you all do, what changes would I need to make to the article for you all to accept.

Thanks!

Shawn Mayberry

ShawnMayberry (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ShawnMayberry, Possibly. The subject certainly fails our notability criteria for politicians, but may still pass our general notability criteria if it is proven that her reparations bill is something noteworthy and if her mentions in reliable sources aren't just passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:46, 8 July 2021 review of draft by AlexanderKopelman


My draft of an article was rejected because of issues with references. I resubmitted an updated draft with additional references on April 5th, 2021. I have not received any additional feedback on the draft. AlexanderKopelman (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not re-submitted it? Press the blue button that says "resubmit". Theroadislong (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:07:19, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6


2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Curbon7 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:27:21, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6


Respected Concern Authority, on the behalf of Kashmir News Bureau I am writing to request you kindly consider the article for publication as This is one of the top news agencies of India.

2405:201:5502:C97D:E915:C31F:9A6:95F6 (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should definitely read our policy on undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing, as from your use of "on the behalf of Kashmir News Bureau", it seems you are associated with the company. Regardless, as you were told in the reviews, the draft lacks reliable sources, and the subject does not demonstrate notability, per our notability guidelines for companies. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:15:18, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Gavin 78

My Wikipedia biography about my favorite musician was approved today and whenever you look up “Edwin J McEnelly”, the Wikipedia page shows up but with an odd picture of two guys posing with eachother and has nothing to do with the article. I’m not sure why it’s there and when I check the page itself on Wikipedia it isn’t anywhere on the page. I’m wondering if you know anything about it or how to fix it. It wasn’t there in the draft page either

Gavin 78 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gavin 78: Where are you seeing this picture? If it's not on Wikipedia itself there's probably not too much we can do to help. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Gavin 78 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ:

It shows up when you look up “Edwin J. McEnelly” on Google. The Wikipedia page is the first thing that comes up but there is a photo of two random guys next to it where there should be the picture of Edwin on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin 78 (talk • contribs)

Gavin 78 Wikipedia has no control over Google search results or knowledge panels; you will need to contact Google for assistance. The knowledge panels provide a Feedback link. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:28:48, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 182.188.180.119

I think this town should be on the internet because it is a massive effort to lessen the burden of connecting with other cities. 182.188.180.119 (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Please read the comments left by reviewers. 331dot (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:36:33, 8 July 2021 review of submission by Youtalk2021


Youtalk2021 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youtalk2021, the draft is clearly an advertisement for the subject. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

23:37:52, 8 July 2021 review of submission by 182.188.180.119


182.188.180.119 (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask a question. To be frank, I have no idea what this draft is supposed to be about, and whatever it is, it's apparently not notable, as it isn't supported by reliable sources. The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

03:48:03, 9 July 2021 review of draft by Elshitaq


I create a good article for a businessman I wrote a profile about the person that includes basic information I also mentioned his professional career and all the positions and memberships he has gone through to this day. I also cited various realistic sources Unfortunately, I was rejected because the memberships must be prose with chronology Then he went and tried to apply it Currently, I am waiting for the review and I hope the result will be positive Ask for help to make the page approved Elshitaq (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:14:50, 9 July 2021 review of submission by KennyOfHrub


KennyOfHrub (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KennyOfHrub, this draft has already been rejected. Rejection means we will not take another look at it. Even if we did, there's no doubt in my mind that it would probably be outright rejected again. All of the stuff you added is either (1) not supported by reliable sources, (2) written in a non-neutral manner, or (3) is non-notable, or a combination of the three.
After looking through your contribs, you really really really need to take a look at our policies on reliable sourcing and our manual of style for formatting and content. Curbon7 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the history here and the wording I would seriously debate G10ing this. There's been a history of trying to create Wikipedia pages to harass him. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:14:12, 9 July 2021 review of submission by John Wilson baki


If you remove the speedy tag I will drag it to WP:Articles for deletion. You move it to mainspace, you accept all consequences for doing so, including the article being deleted if it is not up to par. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:12:24, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Digby baird

All info on the draft is found in the links Digby baird (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Digbygames.com
You don't have anything approaching acceptable sources that can help prove notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are true digbygames.com The website that the draft about clearly shows 13 games. and web.archive.org/web/*/https://digbygames.com is a popular website used to save videos photos and websites of what they look like whenever the person saved it.

and web.archive.org/web/*/https://digbygames.com has links to all the saves through time and shows proof of all of the changes so I'm not sure why they wouldn't be true. ps I give up I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do. The sources might not be from articles or lists but they are verifiable. Digby baird (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't help prove notability because they're not reliable sources due to being connected to digbygames.com themselves. "Verifiable" is not the only criterion we use when assessing sources; we're also looking to see that they discuss the subject in depth, have professional editorial oversight that fact-checks, and have no direct connexion to the subject (i.e. the subject didn't dictate the content). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:41:53, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Vfmmm3d


Vfmmm3d (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Why article is declined. I have posted as per Wikipedia rules.[reply]

Vfmmm3d Please review the message left by the reviewer as to why the draft was declined. You have not demonstrated that this company meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. The sources you have offered are not appropriate for establishing notability. Please review Your First Article. If you work for this company, please review conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode's top table:
Your sources are almost all completely unusable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:43:33, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Sultana Anya

I got a notes that says my page got rejected and I am not sure how to fix this issue and I worked really hard on that page. :( Can you tell me what I can do to fix that?

Sultana Anya (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sultana Anya Unfortunately, the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. You have not offered any sources demonstrating that this person meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable singer. Some of the sources you have offered do not seem to exist at all, or do not mention the person at all. Please understand that successfully writing a new article is probably the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and not everyone is successful at it. Please review Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:03:20, 9 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by BaileyAcadmey


Hello! My name is Bailey. I wanted to request assistance concerning a Draft article I edited and submitted for review. I have been editing different articles all morning and I came across a draft for the Photographer, Oghalé Alex Ogbaudu. I noticed it had been declined because it may have been written by himself. I saw that he specified this conflict of interest so I decided to look into him further. I found that the articles sourced were genuine and notable. The National Portrait Gallery is a prestigious honour here in the UK. SO I decided to look through the other sources and all of them seemed to corroborate the article. I felt satisfied that this was a page worthy of publication. However, a few users who reviewed the submissions somewhat attacked me for standing up for what I felt was a genuine page of interest as evidenced by the articles and sources. I have come across a few new draft pages and many do not have sources or information which corroborates what is said. However, when reading the article, I felt the tone of its writing actually matched what was written in the articles.

I would like this draft to be fairly reviewed given the sources and published as I believe it is credible.

BaileyAcadmey (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BaileyAcadmey I'm curious as to how you came across this draft; it isn't easy to find a draft unless you are looking for it. Please specify the "attacks" against you which I'm not finding. You have submitted the draft for review and it is pending. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BaileyAcadmey (talk) I have been looking through Wikipedia for articles to edit and I came across a page for Nadine Ijewere among others that I have edited today. I accidentally closed the tab belonging to Nadine and I couldn't remember the spelling properly. In a private window in Chrome there is no history stored so I began searching for words that I remembered within the article. It turns out similar wordings were used in Oghalé's page which is not surprising because both Nadine and Oghalé are photographers within the same industry. I have a genuine interest in photographers within the UK so I started to read and look at the sources. While I started to read Oghale's page, that is when I noticed it was only a draft but within the draft, I felt the sources were credible. That is how I came across the page.BaileyAcadmey (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:11:42, 9 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Positiveilluminati


Hi I think the reviewer was not fair because this subject co stars being on same kind shows are notable enough for a article but the reviewer made a very strong statement that “reality tv participants aren’t notable” pls look into this.

Positiveilluminati (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Positiveilluminati Wikipedia has a specific definition of a notable person, and participation in a reality TV show is not one of the listed criteria. This is why the reviewer made such a strong statement. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you explain this? Baseer Ali They have done one show the same and same network and productions so how do other mtv artist qualify? Positiveilluminati (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Positiveilluminati Note that the whole URL is unnecessary, I have fixed your link to a proper internal link. I have no explanation for every other similar article on Wikipedia, because each article is judged on its own merits. See other stuff exists. It could be that the article you cite is also inappropriate(though that person won their reality show and were not merely a participant, so they may have more coverage about them). It is possible to get inappropriate content by us, this does not mean that other inapprpriate content is allowed too. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:56:51, 9 July 2021 review of draft by Lubov L

The Wikipedia page I have submitted has been declined, as there appears to be a duplicate. I would like to delete the first draft for Aram Mnatskanov in order to resubmit this one.

Lubov L (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lubov L Speedy deletion request submitted at other article. TechnoTalk (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:15:04, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Kstenson86


Made additional changes to the page and added several new citations references. Now i want the changes to be verified and remove the template message that is on the top of the wiki-page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L._Greene

Kstenson86 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been cleaned up and moved to mainspace. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:38:57, 9 July 2021 review of submission by 99CeeCee

I work for the San Diego Community College District and I am trying to create a Wikipedia article for our new chancellor. I don't understand why the page has not been approved. The information on this page is bio information we have gathered from our new Chancellor Dr. Carlos O. Turner Cortez. His bio information can be found here: https://www.sdccd.edu/about/leadership/chancellor/index.aspx

Our previous Chancellor Dr. Constance M. Carroll has a Wikipedia page. I believe that have a Wikipedia article on our chancellor is a very important representation for our District. I would appreciate details on how to create an article that meets Wikipedia standards. This is not self promotion, but information for the public about a public figure. Thank you for your consideration, Charlene Cook You can see on our website that I'm the Digital Communications Specialist for the San Diego Community College District https://www.sdccd.edu/about/departments-and-offices/communications-and-public-relations/media-contacts.aspx

99CeeCee (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Carlos O. Turner Cortez Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
99CeeCee Deleted for G12 copyright infringement. Please don't cut and paste content form other sites. And also see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why an article has to stand on its own merits. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:08, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Helpo786


Helpo786 (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


17:23:08, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Helpo786


Deleted for G12 copyright infringement. TechnoTalk (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:23:08, 9 July 2021 review of draft by Helpo786

18:44:11, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Ourbag

Apart from the notable work of the film director, his independent book publishing note is added. The sources cited are worthy as these sources are leading regional newspapers with a readership of 2.2 Mn people. Notable newspapers like Anandabazar Patrika, Times of India has been quoted.

Requesting revision of the same. In case, the same is rejected, I can cite multiple examples in Wikipedia of the same genre which has less citations and maybe oversees violations of policies (afterall, it is human judgement) and prone to mis!


Ourbag (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:24:25, 9 July 2021 review of draft by 102.44.106.86

The subject in article is notability, and he don't need promotional. already there 9 Reliable sources independent, and all sources have an article in en.wikipedia. 102.44.106.86 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:50:10, 9 July 2021 review of submission by Vivliela


Vivliela (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC) I am in need of any assistance. This is my first article of creation. If anyone would like to help me make my work more “professional” and “proper” for Wikipedia, I’d be more than happy. Any tips on making my work better would be great. Also, I’d like any tips or help to be as explicit and simple as possible. If possible, I’d like my original work to still be there so just some changes to still have my original work but added on advice would be fantastic being that in the past someone edited my work and none of the original content was left. Thank You.[reply]

@Vivliela patently this draft has been rejected. The reviewer who rejected it has told you why that is so. For the future, there are many essays, of which this is one, that help you with the process of article creation.
When you submit any words to Wikipedia you agree to our Terms of Use and agree to irrevocably release your text under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. This means you lose 100% of any control you had until the ping of submission. Your original words may remain for decades or may be edited away almost at once. The trick is not to mind. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:02:39, 9 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Nicole0305


Hello. I can't understand the decision of declining the article. The first source is a podcast, where she talks herself about her life, so it's a good source. The 2nd source has a "About-Us" page, there you see, that their informations are legit and verifiable from reliable sources and you can also see, that the informations came from a journalist. The 3rd source is the award page itself about their own award. The 4th source has also an "About Us" page and is this the problem source for you? If this is too much marketing for you, then I can delete the sentence and the source, but it's a part of her biography anyway. And every other source, what I would choose, would be the same, because it's a commercial part of her biography. And the 5th source is very good, because it's a registered charity and a leading cultural organisation for canadian actors and actresses. Additionally you have many Wikipedia articles, where her name is not be linked, because she hasn't her own wikipedia page. So why is the majority of work non-notable? See the wikipedia articles about Jupiter's Legacy, Ginny & Georgia (very long on Top 1 of all Netflix series), Trapped: The Alex Cooper Story, Utopia Falls and In The Dark. All series and her name are on the wikipedia articles, but she is not linked. So why is her work non-notable? And why is it a promo article? It's her biography. If you think it, because she is the PHILLY Angel, then I can delete the sentence, but it's a part of her biography anyway and so I can't understand this decision, for me personally, it's a very critical decision. Please help me, what I have to change? Thank you.


Nicole0305 (talk) 21:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicole0305 For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. 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 cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The first source is a podcast where she speaks. This is not a useful resource. We record what other people have said about the subject of the article, not what they say. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

03:34:09, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 117.212.19.89

Is article right because many people are searching for that company information about that I write article of the company in detail there are many people daily searching for that company detail I take interview founder and we'll all the detail in that 117.212.19.89 (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

03:58:15, 10 July 2021 review of draft by Justiyaya


Hi, my Draft:Empower Work have been rejected due to GNG reasons, but I think I have enough sources to meet GNG.

Sources:

https://qz.com/work/1419478/empower-work-lets-anxious-employees-text-counselors-for-free/ Quartz

https://www.fastcompany.com/40499797/can-these-apps-help-you-when-your-hr-department-fails Fast Company

https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/10/hr-has-lost-the-trust-of-employees-here-is-who-has-it-now/ Tech Crunch

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/careers-finance/sns-volunteering-can-help-gain-skills-and-land-job-20200225-jh27f7zxtrewlm5j3sr67xq2nu-story.html Chicago Tribune

Analysis,

Quartz: Mentioned founder's name 8 times mentioned organization name 6 times, basically the whole article is about it

Fast Company: Founder's name 2 times, organization name 3 times Whole article is basically about it, provides a criticism section (I should include that in the article)

Tech Crunch: 6 mentions for organization name, 8 mentions for founder name, section written about it (not the whole article) about 1/4-1/3

Chicago Tribune (newly added): 3 mentions for founder's name and another 3 for organization name. Article is basically interviews with NGOs and people who volunteered there, about half of the article covers the organization.

I have sent what is basically the exact message to my first reviewer, they basically told me to resubmit, my second reviewer seems to be ignoring their talk page.

Do you think my draft meets GNG, and if you do think so, what other improvements can I make, and what should I do next?

Justiyaya 03:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

04:13:48, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:C20:DE7A:3F3C:4994

??? 2603:8080:1E03:BC1F:C20:DE7A:3F3C:4994 (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(comment by non reviewer) Hi anon, the draft was denied due to the subject not being notable enough. A subject needs to have at least two reliable sources independent of the subject providing significant coverage in order to be notable enough, your sources are all basically the subject being credited as a producer, and I don't think that counts as significant coverage. Furthermore, there are many sections that are not supported by any citations, which seems like a violation of our biographies of living persons policy, which states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source".
(To anyone that answers this page): I would like to apologize for answering questions here without your permission, but I'm quite confident that my answer is correct, and you seem to have quite a long backlog, so I'm going to answer some for you. If you don't like the answers I'm giving, please leave a message on my talk page asking me to stop, thanks! Justiyaya 05:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is going to complain about your answers so long as they're accurate and you're genuinely attempting to help. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 16:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:03, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Helpo786


Helpo786 (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:Helpo786/sandbox/Azaman Anwer Justiyaya 05:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpo786: I assume this is about User:Helpo786/sandbox/Azaman Anwer. If so, User:Helpo786/sandbox/Azaman Anwer is in no way ready for mainspace, as it does not contain any content about this subject. If you merely want to request that an article about Azman Anwer be created, please use WP:Requested articles for that, even if it is highely backlogged. Here at AfC we unfortunally can only deal with drafts that are at least a valid Stub. Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:06:28, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Thisissujanrai


Thisissujanrai (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thisissujanrai, not all subjects can have an article on Wikipedia, your article doesn't meet WP:GNG, which basically says that an article must have at least two reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage to the subject. Justiyaya 06:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:45:02, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 175.145.98.33


175.145.98.33 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


07:45:02, 10 July 2021 review of draft by 175.145.98.33

Request on 08:48:01, 10 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by YNovakovic


Dear Wikipedia,

My article draft Afripedia keeps getting rejected on the grounds that I should merge it with an already existing article with a similar name: Afripedia Project. I keep explaining that it is not the same topics, but nothing seems to help.

This is my draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Afripedia

And this is the page of the suggested merge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afripedia_Project

Please advise.

Kind regards,

User YNovakovic


YNovakovic (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:21:11, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Magiic Damez

It says it was rejected but I did not violate anything. Please publish this lost information. Magiic Damez (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magiic Damez. In the references section you wrote "≤Journals found in an abandoned town≥". That is insufficient bibliographic information to make the content verifiable. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for more information about how to correctly identify where you got your information. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:24:05, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 1.38.197.113


1.38.197.113 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was rejected but I did not violate anything. Please publish this lost information. 1.38.197.113 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actress. As such, the draft was rejected and will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:15:47, 10 July 2021 review of draft by 103.132.240.240


103.132.240.240 (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nilesh jetpariya please anyone help me with this wikipedia page . i don't know anything about wikipedia rules— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.132.240.240 (talk)
Please do not constantly create new sections; please edit this existing section. You may wish to learn more about Wikipedia before attempting to create a new article- creating a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and doing it withoug any knowledge usually leads to frustration and other bad feelings. Please read Your First Article for starters. 331dot (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:32, 10 July 2021 review of submission by ClaireBearybear


I meant what I said and I said what I meant. Simple it’s not, I am afraid you will find, for a mind-maker-upper to make up his mind. But you’ll miss the best things if you keep your eyes shut. The more that you read, The more things you will know. The more that you learn, The more places you’ll go.

Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.

ClaireBearybear (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you think you're clever of wit
But your article's naught but a pile of s(Redacted)
The reviewer took a look, and sent it away
"Another Seigenthaler? Not this day!" —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an addendum to the note above
I've given the draft a much-needed shove
It's either garbage or a mocking praise
I rather doubt it shall last two more days. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:08:45, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Ourbag

Additional citations has been added for the director in question. I have also added a reference from an OTT platform where the movie '12 seconds' is added to establish presence. This is in adherence to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia Requesting you to kindly approve the document as there has been a research on the movie director's work.

I have added the watch page as permanent so as to add citations for the director as and when there is a press release or his work is highlighted. Also, all the citations added herewith are from leading regional dailies having more than 15 million circulation in print and digital.

Kindly consider the same for approval as my first job, it will motivate me to contribute better articles.

Ourbag (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ourbag The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:37:47, 10 July 2021 review of submission by ReMü77

Draft:Paul van Son }} Hi, has my article Draft:Paul van Son somehow arrived here in this queue? So that it will be discussed and I will be able to take part in the discussion? Because I haven't discovered it yet... never been here before ;-) Thanks in advance! ReMü77 (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, still have to find my way in this area--ReMü77 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a queue, and in fact there isn't a formal review queue. Reviewers are volunteers, like everyone else on Wikipedia, and will get to a draft when they can. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article has been "flagged" I already added several good sources. I will see what else there is...--ReMü77 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12:39:07, 10 July 2021 review of submission by 175.145.98.33


175.145.98.33 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:47:01, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Sahiba21


Sahiba21 (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Hasmeet Kaur
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We're not a social network, and we have no tolerance for unsourced autobiographies. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:39, 10 July 2021 review of submission by Kimran999


Kimran999 (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. The two sources I was able to assess are both useless for notability - one is presumably an interview with the subject, the other a gossip article written under a role byline. Even if the two remaining sources were impeccable it likely would not be enough to justify an article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 15:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:20:39, 10 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by A.kingstar


Greetings, regarding to my article which was decline today, I would like to know if Wikipedia can assist me on how to write the article to Wikipedia standard. I will appreciate in hearing from you. A.kingstar (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.kingstar (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


18:24:31, 10 July 2021 review of submission by A.kingstar

Am by name Azuogu Kingsley John I wrote an article regarding myself on how I started my school and to my present state but unfortunately it was decline due to Wikipedia standard of article and I write to Wiki on how to assist me to get through the standard of your article.

A.kingstar (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Azuogu Kingsley John
This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. We do not accept resumes or biographies of living people without any sort of reliable sources cited. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

05:59:19, 11 July 2021 review of submission by 2405:201:5C0A:4A9A:F579:C2A6:B145:4483

This is my first attempt at creating wikipedia article. I am unable to understand why the draft is getting rejected inspite of a notable personality, reputed links and following all wikipedia guidelines. Please help. 2405:201:5C0A:4A9A:F579:C2A6:B145:4483 (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the rejection was given by the reviewer; the person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. 331dot (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:02:13, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Helpo786


Helpo786 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helpo786 You don't ask a question. Please edit this existing section to ask your question, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear This is the name of a person who is real, Azaman Anwer it works for modeling and acting from Malaysia. Helpo786 (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helpo786 That this person is real is not at issue. The person does not meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable actor. As such, the draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a person, it depends on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please read Your First Article.
If you have additional comment, please edit this existing section, do not create additional sections. This is easier to do with the full desktop version of Wikipedia in a browser on your device than in the app or mobile version, which do not have full functionality. 331dot (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:08:39, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Wikistarred 8604


Wikistarred 8604 (talk) 07:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that the previous version of this page looked more like an advertisement, so I rewrote it to make it look more encyclopedic. I have taken care of the neutral and informative-only guidelines. I request you to reconsider this page for submission. If submission is still rejected, kindly send me some advice regarding what further changes might be required. Thanks. Wikistarred 8604

Wikistarred 8604 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikistarred 8604 The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further and that no amount of editing can change that. For a person to merit an article, they must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources like books or news reports. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The person concerned has received independent coverage in several news reports. If I do add news reports, would that help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikistarred 8604 (talk • contribs)

Wikistarred 8604 The reviewer rejected the draft because it seems unlikely that the person would meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you have significant news reports, that are not just a brief mention and are not an interview with this person, sources that have chosen on their own to provide this person with significant coverage, you will need to first bring that up with the reviewer. Most "YouTubers" rarely merit articles, even those with many subscribers, as large numbers of subscribers are not part of the notability criteria. A person can have tens of millions of subscribers and not merit an article, and a person can have 5 subscribers and merit one. It depends on the sources. 331dot (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

07:31:44, 11 July 2021 review of submission by ImranGhaziOfficial


ImranGhaziOfficial (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImranGhaziOfficial Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. 331dot (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:01:08, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Ptvikassharmaabvp


Ptvikassharmaabvp (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ptvikassharmaabvp You don't ask a question, but Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to state about a person, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

08:43:30, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Roohul88

[1] Roohul88 (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept articles or drafts written solely to advertise or promote the subject of the article, and this draft has no acceptable sources regardless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ LLC, Autovivo. Autovivo LLC [www.autovivo.it www.autovivo.it]. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

09:03:19, 11 July 2021 review of draft by FlowerMoon593


FlowerMoon593 (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently editing the draft:Holy Coves, before I submit I was wondering if it was possible for someone to look it over please? Im worried resubmitting it if it doesnt meet the requirments will get it deleted! :/ Many thanks in advance!

Hi FlowerMoon593. The way to ask for someone to "look it over" is to submit it for review. Other people are waiting 4 months between reviews because there's a huge backlog (in part because people keep submitting hopeless drafts). This help desk is to answer specific questions about the process, it is not a shortcut through the review-improve-resubmit cycle. If you repeatedly resubmit with little or no improvement, then yes, the draft is likely to be deleted. You should be fine, though, if you make an earnest attempt to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, thoroughly address problems that reviewers have raised, and make major improvements to the draft.
Have you read WP:NBAND backwards, forwards, upside down and sideways? To be successful, it's vital that you understand whether Holy Coves is notable (suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a stand alone article) or not, be able to explain in a sentence how they are notable (usually the first or second sentence of the draft, see MOS:LEAD), and have at least three independent, reliable, secondary sources containing significant coverage that prove it. Quality of references is much more important than quantity. Contact Music, Liverpool Echo, North Wales Live, and Louder Than War are probably your best. The others may hurt the draft more than they help. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for sources Wikipedians have found useful when writing about music. Also act on the advice you've been given about too many red links, and more generally reduce the overlinking in the draft. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Worldbruce Thankyou for your message and advice :) My eyes are literally going square from all the reading I have been doing on helping my draft! Haha! :O Sorry if it appears as though I am looking for a shortcut to review, that was not my intention and I apologise, I was worried if I submitted it again it might be deleted. I had removed red links, but I will go back and remove more. Thankyou again :) FlowerMoon593 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:15:25, 11 July 2021 review of submission by 175.145.98.33


175.145.98.33 (talk) 09:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has become disruptive. The draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Badgering people here with incessant sections is just going to result in those sections being summarily reverted off. And if you move your draft to main space in spite of the rejection, I will waste no time taking it to Articles for Deletion. Start listening to the advice you've been receiving. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

09:17:42, 11 July 2021 review of submission by 102.89.3.47


He is a notable person in Nigeria and has contributed towards youth development and education 102.89.3.47 (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10:09:11, 11 July 2021 review of draft by Rizky Novalini


Greetings. I wrote and submitted an article last month and it got declined. The reviewer gave me an explanation of the problems surrounding that article and the reason why it got declined. I went to fix it and resubmitted the article on June 24 but until now I haven't received any word from any reviewer? Is there something wrong with the article? I also explained to the reviewer who declined my draft. I made an apology, fixed what I did wrong, and explained how what I wrote is there on the sources I used. However, the references are mostly in Bahasa Indonesia so I understand if there be misunderstandings.

Sorry for rambling on, is there anything else in the article that I have to fix in order to get reviewed?

Thank you.

Rizky Novalini (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rizky Novalini As noted on your submission, "This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,825 pending submissions waiting for review." The backlog has been reduced from 5 months, but you will need to continue to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:59, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Hamidkhan779


Hamidkhan779 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidkhan779 You don't ask a question, but your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

14:01:52, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Rishitshivesh


Hey, What should I do to have enough to make a Wikipedia page. I also wanna use it to feature it on Google. Please help! Rishitshivesh (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this draft (which, based on your username, is presumably you) does not appear to meet the notability criteria for an article. --Kinu t/c 15:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

15:46:58, 11 July 2021 review of draft by 2001:56A:73E9:1800:9955:8413:F766:C9DE


2001:56A:73E9:1800:9955:8413:F766:C9DE (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft contains no content. What is your question? --Kinu t/c 17:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:03, 11 July 2021 review of draft by Rybkovich

The draft was rejected by @AntanO: based on copyright grounds. Following our procedure I asked several brief and specific questions "what's the copyrighted content? What I quoted? Do you have a rule on how many words I can quote?" There was no response. Instead my name was included in an answer to another editor regarding a different article and an unrelated issue:

"76% contents are from here. Read WP:COPYVIO and WP:C-P @Justsurfin12 and Rybkovich:"

Assuming the issue is regarding the cited paragraphs:

Two quotes are brief, conveying a cult leader's specific and emotional description of the key events in his teachings. The other quote is from a cult member's description and purpose of group activity which to some would be considered controversial. This quote was made of an end of one sentence followed another sentence.

Thank you.

(talk) 16:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:43:34, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Aapki Kahani Aapki Zubani


Aapki Kahani Aapki Zubani (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21:05:48, 11 July 2021 review of draft by 154.118.44.226


154.118.44.226 (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please can someone help me resolve the issues given about a page I want to add to Wikipedia, this is the page link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Crystabel_Goddy thank you

Both of your sources are written in the first-person. Independence from the subject is one of the things we look for to see if a source is acceptable. In addition, we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Every biographical claim that could potentially be challenged for any reason what-so-ever MUST be cited to a strong third-party source that corroborates the claim or (if no such sources can be found) removed wholesale. This is a HARD REQUIREMENT when writing about living or recently-departed people on Wikipedia and is NOT NEGOTIABLE. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC) (Edited 21:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

21:31:45, 11 July 2021 review of submission by Dr Fluffy Quackers


Hi! I just resubmitted my article stub after reading my violation policy WP:NARTIST. I believe I addressed everything necessary and eager for your feedback! Thanks so much

Dr Fluffy Quackers (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So when the time comes and I find new articles that support the subject - do I just do a completely new start to the subject? Like a brand new article? Cause It would still say there is already a draft about the subject. Dr Fluffy Quackers (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I am curious - based on the new comment and source I listed - do you feel that is sufficient? The WP:NARTIST said the subject was notable if their art was showcased in a large, well known entity and this subject is in the WTC.

Dr Fluffy Quackers If you have new information that the reviewer did not consider, you need to approach them with that information. 331dot (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

02:52:02, 12 July 2021 review of submission by WinnieHunter


Mistakenly credited all entires in the filmography section to unreliable source IMDb. Deleted all of that and added more credible references and citations to the actual content rather than credits. Thanks.

WinnieHunter (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WinnieHunter. If he's really best known for his [2] television appearances in Orange is the New Black [10 lines?] ..., and the best evidence of being well known for that is his name and character name on a list of the 200+ actors who appeared in the one season of the series, then you're wasting your time, he is not notable (not suitable for a stand alone encyclopedia article). The rejection of the draft is intended to convey that it's hopeless, that no amount of editing will make the topic acceptable. Consequently, volunteers do not intend to review it again. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

05:22:50, 12 July 2021 review of submission by GoldenRise


GoldenRise (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Not only is it utterly unsourced, but it's written to promote her and her music. This is not acceptable. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:40:06, 12 July 2021 review of submission by ChiCaproni


Hello! I'm incredibly confused by this. There are countless other organizations who have Wikipedia pages. I have done the same for this organization (that I discovered recently and have no form of sponsor from). It's an encyclopedia article defining the organization for those who don't know. I am not sure what else I could have done to make it more impartial. Comparing it to numerous other organization pages and Wikipedia instructions, my independent secondary sources are abundant and content focuses on structure and skeletal features to simply define the organization and some other associated terms/projects that people may go searching for-- like an encyclopedia entry. This decision doesn't make sense when I look at what I see published on Wikipedia and outlined in the instructions for creating a page. I have followed all guidelines. There is no place in the article where I promote the organization at all. I would appreciate publication or further detailed explanation. Thank you. ChiCaproni (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further, and I wager all those other articles weren't written to promote the organisation, puff it up as the hottest thing since sliced bread, and go off on tangents about how GRAET and AWESUM and WAKKAWAKKA they are. We do not accept blatant spam, advertising, or articles written in such a way as to promote their subject with what is the text equivalent of a Gish gallop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChiCaproni: (And just to be clear - it is still promotional, both in word usage and what is covered. If you have a connexion to the subject, I would recommend disclosing it.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:00:49, 12 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Sayyar-Mon



Talieh-Sayyar (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:24:51, 12 July 2021 review of draft by Lenny328


The article I wrote was declined. I'm asking for help to better rewrite it into the better Wikipedia format. Since most of my sources were originally in Cantonese, maybe may translation of the references into my article was not formal enough. Thank you.



Lenny328 (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:37:18, 12 July 2021 review of submission by Dp3stage


Dp3stage (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Team,

I have recently started contributing to Wikipedia. But my article is been removed/deleted. But I think it's an appropriate draft & not some kinda paid promotion. Please help me retrieve it.

Foliyoo offers a comprehensive assortment of services to its clients. The company has all kinds of vehicles possible with him for any kind of supply chain support. A few of them are listed below. And for more information, You may visit https://www.foliyoo.com . Perhaps you would have had more luck by starting off sources independent of the subject. MOS:PEACOCK might also be worth a read. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

13:06:25, 12 July 2021 review of draft by Shalni gupta


My draft is not live where is my mistake. please help me out Shalni gupta (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a how to guide, but an encyclopedia. Please read Your first article. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:15:27, 12 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Bankrupt305


Hi, I crafted a Wikipedia page for Zack Weiner with a number of secondary sources from prominent publications. Can I get further guidance as to how he can be considered notable?

Bankrupt305 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bankrupt305: Please refer to the top table here.
If I may be candid, some of the sources proffered help prove that Overtime is notable, while doing nothing to help the notability of Weiner. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17:44:21, 12 July 2021 review of submission by 63.240.242.213


63.240.242.213 (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


hoge is now featured on latest article by moneycontrol.com which is a trusted cryptocurrency news source

17:52:55, 12 July 2021 review of draft by 2600:1700:2160:4A70:0:0:0:55E

What do you consider reliable sources if not Amazon, Walmart, Library of Congress, local news papers. I don't know what else to furnish you.

2600:1700:2160:4A70:0:0:0:55E (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP contains frequently discussed sources, anything with a green background is acceptable, sources with a yellow background might, but might also not, be acceptable, and anything else is not acceptable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:05:39, 12 July 2021 review of draft by WikiCpa

The previous reviewer had mentioned that he could not "access" the resources. Following that I had provided scanned pages from the reference books. Now the next reviewer states the sources are not reliable even though the sources are "independent" and "official" sources. The only source that is missing is that of World War 2 which is more to provide background - the notability is relating to the actions in the war of 1965 and operations in Kargil that changed the direction of the military conflict and political outcomes. I have requested an additional book written by General Harbhaksh Singh to see if there are any further references, however, anyone familiar with Indian Military History of the time will be able to endorse the sources and reliability. I would request that someone be assigned who can "access" the sources referenced in the article rather than to condemn the article because they are unable to access the sources. Thank you. PS: I have made substantial edits based on the reviewer comments. Following your response I will attempt to make any other suggested changes and then submit the article again. WikiCpa (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCpa (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiCpa. When you resubmit the draft, it will be reviewed. I don't interpret the first reviewer's comment quite the same as you do. Don't worry too much about who will review it. Reviewers have enormous access to sources, and considerable experience evaluating drafts even when some sources are difficult to access.
A common difficulty with drafts written by family members is that they usually want to present the complete story of their relative, everything they know. But Wikipedia doesn't permit editors to use their personal knowledge of the subject. Instead every statement must be supported by reliable sources, and the bulk of the content should come from independent, secondary sources.
One solution is to slash any content for which you cannot cite a reliable source. That may leave a very incomplete biography, but that's okay with Wikipedia. If you aren't willing to do that, then you may wish to consider alternative outlets, with different inclusion criteria, for what you want to write. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18:59:33, 12 July 2021 review of submission by 2603:7000:2143:8500:C9A2:9540:670:12BB


I am requesting a re-review. As he meets GNG.

Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:C9A2:9540:670:12BB (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC) 2603:7000:2143:8500:C9A2:9540:670:12BB (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:24:22, 12 July 2021 review of draft by Nrizzo16


Nrizzo16 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make a wiki page for my workplace and it's being denied for copyright. I have the rights to use this information, something that I helped write, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to prove it to wiki and my page is being destroyed.

@Nrizzo16: we have no way of telling who is at the other end of the network cable. The process of getting such rights confirmed is explained at WP:DCM, however, doing so would almost certainly be a waste of even more time, because 99% of the texts not wirtten speficially for Wikipedia are also unsiutable for use on Wikipedia for two reasons, one and two. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nrizzo16: We won't accept something you wrote for another website because, nine times out of ten, it's under full "all rights reserved" copyright, which is mutually exclusive with Wikipedia's content licence (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0). Victor Schmidt is also dead-on above that content written for an organisation's website is, as a rule, not going to adhere to WP:Neutral point of view and thus releasing the copyright via the process at WP:DCM isn't going to work. We're not interested in what someone/something has written or commissioned about themselves. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

19:26:56, 12 July 2021 review of submission by SidraRanaAdv

My article is not accepted even i used authentic resources and refrences links Help me SidraRanaAdv (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:Kaleem Ahmad Khursheed
@SidraRanaAdv: Please refer to the top table here.
The only sources even approaching usability are all connected in some way to the election, and that's a very bad sign for the article's viability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20:27:53, 12 July 2021 review of draft by Abookishbee


Abookishbee (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not accept recipes. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

05:28:07, 13 July 2021 review of draft by Rybkovich


The draft was rejected on copyright grounds.

If it's regarding the 3 cited quote paragraphs: Two of the quotes are brief, conveying a cult leader's specific and emotional description of the key events in his teachings. The other quote is from a cult member's description and purpose of group activity which to some would be considered controversial. This quote was made of an end of one sentence followed another sentence. If the cited paragraphs are not the issue, it would be great to know what is so that it can be fixed.

Thank you.

Rybkovich (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those quote blocks are not de minimis as policy requires. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:03:12, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Shalni gupta


Can you please give me some advise

@Shalni gupta: This isn't an encyclopaedia article; it reads more like an op-ed. We don't accept opinion pieces. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:38, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Aegersz


My original draft was rejected and I have no idea about how to create an entry as I can't find any external references to my website despite the large member base.

for the draft, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dopetalk

Aegersz (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you cannot get it accepted because it simply isn't notable - hard to accept perhaps especially when it's your site and you're having to also manage the conflict of interest. You have mentioned elsewhere your site is similar to Bluelight (web forum). If you google "bluelight forum", the first three search results are a perfect example of why that site is notable - they are articles, two of which are scientific publications citing the work of Bluelight, that are reputable and separate from Bluelight. Almost all the search results show you that Bluelight is a widely-know, often referred to Internet resource. That's what notability is, and that's the sort of thing you need to provide to show that your web forum is worthy of a Wikipedia article. If you can't do it, then give up and focus on contributing to the encyclopaedia in other ways. Sorry to brutal. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:46:26, 13 July 2021 re-review of submission by DAvidMaila


Hi! could you please help re-review my submission. The initial editor asked that I add more external links, which I have updated. please let me know if the current version works.

10:28:40, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Arvind4seo


Arvind4seo (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my information as per guidelines suggested by Wikipedia, I do not think I have violated any rules of Wikipedia. It is requested please publish my articles. I will provide additional information in future once it lives.

Thanks

11:49:56, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Lathadoocti


Lathadoocti (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:51:13, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Lathadoocti


Lathadoocti (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:52:54, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Lathadoocti


Lathadoocti (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11:55:42, 13 July 2021 review of submission by Lathadoocti


I have added https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/356431/%7C for notability

Lathadoocti (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1033392552"