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
Reward3 (talk | contribs)
47 edits
Requesting assistance regarding Draft submission on Pike Powers (John P. Powers)
Line 457: Line 457:


:Hi @[[User:Reward3|Reward3]]: the draft hasn't disappeared, it's still there at [[Draft:Pike Powers]]. It hasn't been resubmitted after the March decline, so it will just sit there until six months have passed from the last human edit, at which time it will be deleted as stale. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Reward3|Reward3]]: the draft hasn't disappeared, it's still there at [[Draft:Pike Powers]]. It hasn't been resubmitted after the March decline, so it will just sit there until six months have passed from the last human edit, at which time it will be deleted as stale. -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 13:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

== 13:22, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Reward3 ==
{{Lafc|username=Reward3|ts=13:22, 5 May 2023|draft=Draft submission on Pike Powers (John P. Powers)}}
Hello! I resubmitted a proposed contribution on Pike Powers (John P Powers), incorporating the March 6 suggestions from bprittij. I have not received any comments on the submission, which seems to have been deleted. Can you provide an updated status and a reason for deletion? Thank you so much for your help, Raye Ward [[User:Reward3|Reward3]] ([[User talk:Reward3|talk]]) 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:22, 5 May 2023

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, List, Sorting, Feed		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


April 29

04:31, 29 April 2023 review of submission by IVickyChoudhary

Why it looks like an asvertisement, I wrote whatever I got on google search. I saw his work that's why decide to create his Wiki profile. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly revert back and guide. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hosts: there's a draft, plus an article in mainspace that's proposed for deletion. The latest note on the draft is a decline. Seems like too many "things". Also, I'm not sure I believe the "own work" tag on the image. David10244 (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I'm creating the article, I don't know by that time about the already drafted article of same person. That deletion tag was placed because of a misleading news article(Award name similar to Dada saheb falke award). Now guide me that on which article I work, draft one or new one? IvivekChoudhary (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:13, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Isukchainsingh

Respected Team,

I submitted my article regarding a person who is serving the Indian army and is also an athlete but my submission was declined many times I need help for posting my article. Help me with this, please.

Thanks Isukchainsingh (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Isukchainsingh. Your draft biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced. Please be aware that unreferenced biographies of living people are a policy violation. Your draft cannot possibly be accepted unless you provide references to significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. This is mandatory. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:40, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Tunnizar

Sorry, Don't Delete Here This Original: User:Tunnizar/The Mystery of the Disappearing Rabbids Tunnizar (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tunnizar: deletion hasn't been requested or proposed, at this time. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:33:01, 29 April 2023 review of draft by Biodam


Biodam (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, @Biodam? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know why wazzy records page got declined? Please what’s the errors , can you help fix it Biodam (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Biodam: as it says in the decline notices and comments (did you read them?), the draft is promotional, and there is no obvious notability.
Also, if you have a conflict of interest in the subject, you must disclose it. I have posted instructions on your user talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Biodam. Your draft is full of overtly promotional language like a household name and keeps getting massive airplay as he keeps dropping hits and the next big thing to watch out for. Promotion, advertising and marketing is not permitted on Wikipedia, and all drafts must comply with core content policies like the Neutral point of view. Cullen328 (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks , I understand now Biodam (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:08, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Shrivathsa Rao

Hello, my page was declined mentioning, no reliable sources for the information provided in the page, My Answer: " the page is about an upcoming film in Kannada Film Industry, and I am the director of the said film, hence I acknowledge all information provided are official, reliable & perfect details of the movie" So I finally request to review the page again & grant it go live. Shrivathsa Rao (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrivathsa Rao: sorry, but we will need to see actual published sources; more specifically, multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and fully independent, and provide significant coverage of the subject.
Also, you need to formally disclose your conflict of interest; I have posted a message on your user talk page with more information. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Gianoseduto

Dear NP83,

I not so recently submitted an article to Wikipedia, titled High Stone Games, which was unfortunately rejected for not meeting the notability guidelines.

I would like to request some clarifications and advice on how to improve the article and resubmit it in the future. Specifically, I would appreciate your input on the following points:

Specific reasons: Could you please provide me with specific reasons why my article was rejected? I would like to understand which aspects of the article did not meet the notability guidelines or any other criteria that may apply.

Guidance: Could you please provide me with guidance on how to improve my article to meet Wikipedia's standards? I would appreciate any specific suggestions on how to make it more notable and how to provide more reliable sources to support its claims.

Community assistance: Could you please suggest any ways I can seek assistance from the Wikipedia community in improving my article? This may include reaching out to other editors or administrators, or seeking advice from forums or social media groups dedicated to Wikipedia.

Open-mindedness: I am open-minded to constructive criticism and feedback. I understand that Wikipedia's standards are high and that rejection does not necessarily mean that my article is not worth publishing. I am willing to use the feedback I receive to improve my article and make it more notable and informative.

Thank you for taking the time to review my article and for your assistance in improving it. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely, gianoseduto Gianoseduto (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gianoseduto: this draft has a number of issues, but they can mostly be dealt with by editing. The one problem that no amount of editing can resolve, which is the reason this was declined and then rejected, is lack of notability. To establish notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. The reviewers contend that this standard has not been met.
You may enquire at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, to see if someone is interested in collaborating with you to develop an article on this subject, but don't get your hopes up too much. In any case, even then you would need to start by finding sufficient sources to satisfy the GNG notability requirement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:07, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Hamdymaster

i need help for publishing Wikipedia article Veronica Studio 14:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hamdymaster: that draft has been rejected, and I've just requested that both it and your sandbox one be deleted.
Please don't create multiple copies of the same content.
I've no idea what 'Veronica Studio' is. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:54, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Inchwiki

The draft was declined because it did not meet the Wiki standard for inline citations. I agree more inline citations could be useful, but the Wiki page on minimal standards for inline citations mentions 4 types of statement which require inline citation. As far as I can see the article does not contain any statements of those kinds. So some clarification here would be useful. Inchwiki (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Inchwiki: you may be right in saying that you don't strictly speaking have to add more inline citations (although the 'likely to be challenged' situation is pretty open-ended, and could well apply here), but IMHO they are the gold standard of referencing and should really be used at all times. Is there any reason why you don't want to add more of them?
The reason why many reviewers (among others) prefer inline citations is that they make it very clear where the information comes from, ie. which source has provided which bit of content, and how much of the content remains unsupported. You would be greatly assisting in this if you provided inline citations throughout.
Or put it this way: there are several paragraphs without a single citation. From where did you get all that information? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:23, 29 April 2023 review of submission by Hickeygamez

This page has been declined a few times, but it seems like it has made some notable steps for improvement (the topic is now indexed with Medline, recently featured in many news articles). Do you think it is worth submitting now? Hickeygamez (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 30

02:47, 30 April 2023 review of submission by 林儀承

Hi, My draft for the National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering contains numerous references, including information on World's Top 2% Scientists, China Subject Ratings 2021, and World University Rankings 2022 by subject: computer science, which are all well-known in the field. What can I do to ensure that my draft is published as a formal article? Thank you for your attention. 林儀承 (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: Draft:National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering
@林儀承: in order for this draft to have any chance of being accepted, you need to demonstrate that it is notable per WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. So far there seem to be no such sources cited.
Note that while universities typically are notable, individual departments, faculties, schools, colleges, etc. seldom are. Which may be why the declining reviewer suggested that this information (or at least salient points of it, as there is far too much detail here) be added to the article on the university itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

03:35, 30 April 2023 review of submission by JackW2016

I found multiple link resources about Simo Idrissi and need to add them the other thing, Simo Idrissi is a writer and has public links to his research and articles. I still don't know the maximum number of resources needed to make this article follow Wikipedia regulations. Thanks JackW2016 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JackW2016: this draft has been rejected already; if you wish new sources or other evidence of notability to be considered, you must take the matter up with the rejecting reviewer. Beware, though: I had a quick look at the sources cited, and couldn't find anything there that would seem to contribute to WP:GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few days ago, I added a few sources to an article about Simo Idrissi. These sources are legitimate. Friends from Wikipedia helped me answer my questions and said that resources should contain the name of Simo. That is exactly what I am doing. Now, I have a few questions:
  1. What is the maximum number of resources that an article can have?
  2. Can I create a new article about the same person when I have all the links available?
  3. Simo Idrissi is not my friend and he doesn’t know me, but I know what he is doing as a public figure and soccer coach. I like to write about these people and I have more people to write about, but I am still learning the process. How can I revise Simo Idrissi’s article and have it accepted?
Hope you understand me.
Have a nice day JackW2016 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:54, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Shashi.myofficial

The new resubission for Draft Bhavtosh Pandey is still pending. 

Shashi.myofficial (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashi.myofficial: I'm not quite sure what you're saying, but just so we're clear, this draft has not been resubmitted, and is therefore not pending review. That being the case, what is your question? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashi.myofficial The draft has no inline references, and lots of praise (that word "passion", plus "driving force", "love for art", etc.). It has not been resubmitted, but if you resubmit as is, the draft will be declined again. David10244 (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Raves2023

Hi, I dont understand how and why this isn't approved.. the magazine is like others and even does more collaborations.. i am new to this so please do tell me what else needed to get it approved since I looked at other articles and i dont know what else to do... thank you! Raves2023 (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raves2023: as it says in the last few decline notices, the draft was declined because it was/is promotional. I can see that you have subsequently made changes to it and resubmitted for another review, so you will get another assessment when a reviewer gets around to evaluating it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello dear @DoubleGrazing, it was declined again and I am not sure why.. I dee the reason but how can this be? other than the fact there are articles on other magazines and including the fact this magazine is read by many many many people.. what can I do? Raves2023 (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raves2023: it wasn't declined again, it was actually rejected this time, meaning you can no longer submit it. Whether there are "articles on other magazines" (on which point, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), or "this magazine is ready by many many many people" or "does more collaborations", etc., none of that matters; we assess notability, which is a core requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, according to the applicable policies and guidelines, and this subject has apparently not satisfied those. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing but how can this be? this is not a just a simpel magazine, it's an international one.. do you agree with this rejection? what can I do now?
please do reply since I am lost and I am sure this deserve an articel.. Raves2023 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Raves2023: it doesn't matter whether I agree with the rejection. What matters is whether there are sufficient (in quality and quantity) sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable; if there aren't, then it isn't possible to have an article on it accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:28, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Regal venator

what must should i add to make it notable Regal venator (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Regal venator Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, meaning in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources must already exist for a topic so a "struggling" actor will not warrant an article. This is the reason is was rejected so will not longer be considered at this time. However, a draft can proposed in the future should the actor gain such coverage which is generally after they have had several significant roles in notable works. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:11, 30 April 2023 review of submission by Nealmcb

As a long-time wikipedia editor, with no connections to the subject of this article, but a commitment to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, I ran across this draft on Joan Sullivan Garrett. It is clear to me that the subject is quite notable. I've trimmed it down to 2/3 the size and I've tried to overcome the promotional aspects of the article and the fact that the original editor had an undisclosed connection. I would like someone else to agree that it is now worthy of promotion to article status where further editing can take place as normal, or point out additional aspects that need attention. Thanks in advance! ★NealMcB★ (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nealmcb what you are asking for is a pre-review which we generally do not do. Given you are autoconfirmed you can simply move the draft to article space. Outside of non-autoconfirmed or COI/Paid editors (or some type of ban), there is no obligation for a draft to go through AfC even if previously declined. If you choose to go through AfC, submit it then I suggest placing a note on the talk page with the WP:THREE sources that meet notability. If you do that, let me know (ping me here or note at my talk page) and I will place an AfC comment letting reviewers know to look at the talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:32, 30 April 2023 review of submission by The haul

I'll provide all the details with citation with genuine information and things then why my article deleted. The haul (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The haul you do no ask a question but please see the messages on your talk page, User talk:The haul, as to why the draft was deleted. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:37, 30 April 2023 review of submission by JackW2016

A few days ago, I added a few sources to an article about Simo Idrissi. These sources are legitimate. Friends from Wikipedia helped me answer my questions and said that resources should contain the name of Simo. That is exactly what I am doing. Now, I have a few questions:

What is the maximum number of resources that an article can have? Can I create a new article about the same person when I have all the links available? Simo Idrissi is not my friend and he doesn’t know me, but I know what he is doing as a public figure and soccer coach. I like to write about these people and I have more people to write about, but I am still learning the process. How can I revise Simo Idrissi’s article and have it accepted?

Hope you understand me.

Have a nice day 

JackW2016 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JackW2016 it is not the number of sources; it is the quality and depth coverage. Sources need meet all four of the following criteria to establish notability: be secondary (not primary), be reliable, provide in-depth coverage about the subject and the content within the sources must be entirely independent (not what the subject says such as interviews, etc.). The draft has now been rejected twice so will no longer be considered so no, you should not create another draft. If you wish to create a draft on different subject, in addition to the above read Your first article. S0091 (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 1

06:41:36, 1 May 2023 review of draft by Natsu Misikava

Learn how to write an article on bussnes

Natsu Misikava (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I am new to wikipedia and i don't know how to wright a article Natsu Misikava (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Natsu Misikava: you should be able to find everything you need at WP:YFA.
However, the first thing you need to do before you start writing anything is determine if your intended subject is notable. Usually this is done by reference to the WP:GNG notability standard, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If you cannot find such sources, then there is no point in even starting a draft. If you can find sufficient sources that meet the GNG standard, then essentially you write your draft by summarising (in your own words) what those sources have said.
Actually, the very first thing you need to do is disclose any interest you may have in your chosen subject. I will post a message on your talk page with more info on this. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Natsu Misikava. Your draft is an advertisement, and advertising is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Rishus5911

approve my page Rishus5911 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rishus5911: this draft has already been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further, let alone "approved". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanx Rishus5911 (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 1 May 2023 review of submission by 109.253.182.198

Hello, I don't understand why this draft article has been rejected. Could I please receive some guidance as to what I'm supposed to modify in order to get it published? Thank you very much in advance. 

109.253.182.198 (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:34, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Lesterleexxx

I am trying to publish my article about the first Uzbek technology company, which produces computer software, games and other digital products. But moderators think that I am publishing an advertising, which only promotes a company. Why? There is no any links to products, which I might advertise. Lesterleexxx (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesterleexxx:
Firstly, because this is advertising; see WP:YESPROMO.
Secondly, there is not even the slightest suggestion of any notability, which is a hard requirement for any article to be accepted into Wikipedia.
Thirdly, because you have a conflict of interest, as stated on your user page, yet you have not made a formal disclosure. For this reason you are also not allowed to publish anything directly (and this includes moving from drafts into the main article space) on a subject where you have a COI.
And fourthly, because you keep recreating the same content over and over again, which is WP:TENDENTIOUS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, yet again; user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Cseedi

The topic appears notable in view of its historical association with a related topic Scientific American. Cseedi (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cseedi: 'association' with anything does not confer notability; also, the sources cited are pretty rubbish, if I'm honest. If you wish to appeal against the rejection, you need to take your case to the reviewer who rejected this, and demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NJOURNALS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cseedi, please be aware that notability is not inherited. Cullen328 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:29, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Gpshibu

Gpshibu (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpshibu: please don't copypaste your draft here.
Is there a question you would like to ask? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gpshibu, an unreferenced biography of a living person is a policy violation. Your draft will never be accepted in its current form. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 1 May 2023 review of submission by CliveKeyte

Hi, I'm trying to get some help with this article. I found a page on Companies based in Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_based_in_Hampshire, and wanted to add Intrafocus to the list. I then looked at the format of three companies in the list and copied the one for Kenwood Limited. I substituted the content with content from Intrafocus Limited and submitted the article, which was rejected. I'm not too surprised, but I hoped for some more constructive help rather than what appeared to be a boilerplate response. Is there anyone who can help me construct a more informative page? Many thanks. CliveKeyte (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CliveKeyte: the draft is promotional, poorly referenced, and has no indication of any notability.
Also, you clearly have a conflict of interest; I will post a message on your talk page on how to address this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably also worth explaining that you shouldn't model your draft after existing articles, but rather by reference to the policies and guidelines applicable; otherwise you may simply replicate errors which exist in the articles that you try to mimic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CliveKeyte, you modeled your draft on a stub class article, which is the lowest possible rating. That's like copying the homework of a student who has the worst grades in the class. Take a look at Good articles or Featured articles instead. Cullen328 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CliveKeyte I don't understand this part: "Strategy Workshops based the Balanced Scorecard in association with the Strategy Management Group,.[1], and The George Washington University". What is the "balanced scorecard"? What is KPI? What are SMEs? There should not be an "author disclosure" within the article; your WP:COI (or, more appropriate, WP:PAID) declaration belongs on your user page. You'll have a hard time getting this approved unless you can find independent sources. See WP:YFA. David10244 (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Brian.butt

I cannot understand why this band is being rejected as not notable I have verified large amount of monthly streams from independent sources. I am aware of similar bands with less verified sources. I need help getting this article approved. Brian.butt (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't shown how they would pass WP:NBAND and Spoitify, YouTube and Discogs are not reliable sources. If you see any "similar bands with less verified sources" then tell us what they are and we can either improve them or delete them, see WP:OSE. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:06, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Ifayinka12

I don't know how to enter my draft afc Ifayinka12 (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ifayinka12 please see Your first article. Wikipedia is not a blog or social media so is not the appropriate place to write about yourself. If that is what you want to do, you will need do it elsewhere. S0091 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ifayinka12, you are not notable and are therefore not eligible for a Wikipedia biography. Please focus on your education instead, and read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Cullen328 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:40, 1 May 2023 review of submission by 122.56.171.181

I've improved my draft please read it again 122.56.171.181 (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the draft violates most of Wikipedia's core policies such as verifiability, no original research and maintaining a neutral point of view, thus is rejected so will no longer be considered. S0091 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP, your draft is pretty much nonsense. Cullen328 (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:57, 1 May 2023 review of submission by Jovial script

my page was taken down even though nothing in it is false why is that. I just think it would be cool to have my own wiki page Jovial script (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jovial script see What Wikipedia is not. S0091 (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jovial script, your draft is a childish publicity stunt. Abandon that behavior if you want to edit this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


May 2

01:28, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Superwiki999

Hello and have a nice day

Indeed, this article has been lied to by some antifans, they did it on purpose so that he can't appear here.I'm trying to fix it encyclopedia and avoid ads so give me a chance.

I can provide some sources in Vietnamese from Vietnam national television station VTV and some other provincial TV stations about him.

Thank you very much for this patronage. Have a nice day Superwiki999 (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Superwiki999: this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:45, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Raves2023

I am not sure why the draft is getting declined.. i see the reason but this is an international magazine with many viewers, this company is doing colab's all over and there are articles for related magazines. Is it because it's run by an Israeli and not American? if so, it's not even in hebrew... would love help! Raves2023 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raves2023: please don't start multiple threads on this same topic; I just responded to your previous question not ten minutes ago. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I didnt see it so I wrote again. Raves2023 (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:48, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Matt the Mech

Matt the Mech had already been clearly asked not to push this topic further. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I understand that Wikipedia's policy on advertising is strict, and I have taken care to remove any language that could be seen as promotional (see Revision History). As it currently stands, the content is purely factual and includes references from reliable sources to support all of the information presented. It was for these reasons that I submitted the article without changes. Unfortunately, it was declined again on the same advertorial grounds and without any specific examples from within the article. I believe the article meets all Wikipedia standards, and respectfully request that it be reconsidered for acceptance. If concerns are present, I would be happy to address any specific examples identified and make the necessary changes. Thank you for your consideration. Matt the Mech (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have consistently ignored all advice given to you so far, as a result the draft has been rejected it will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You have consistently ignored all advice given to you so far..."
Overall I respectfully disagree, but genuinely want to understand your point of view. From my point of view, when I consider the Review History, I see many revisions based on advice:
- 02/28/23 - "Removed the "software platform" section to help avoid misinterpretation of the app's operation as promotional or advertorial."
- 03/01/23 - "Removed [Partnerships] section per previous reviewer's recommendation. Removed numerical values that may be misconstrued as promotional. Reduced source-per-statement count for readability."
- 03/15/23 - "Removed all partnerships. Added reputable sources including but not limited to; Daily News (Los Angeles), KIRO 7 News Seattle, Seattle Business Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, The Seattle Times, and Chicago Tribune."
As stated in my previous comment, I do admit that I submitted without changes later on, but this was because there was no explanation or examples provided, and the article content had already been boiled down to clear, factual statements based on reliable sources rather than unfounded opinions. Matt the Mech (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

18:03:34, 2 May 2023 review of draft by Nelson Hysa


Nelson Hysa (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:28:46, 2 May 2023 review of draft by RoachPeter


I'm worried that I have done something wrong that has resulted in my draft article on Edward Vernon Arnold being listed twice with different dates. As far as I can see there is no difference between the two drafts, so it looks as if one of them ought to be deleted, but I'm not sure how to do it. RoachPeter (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC) RoachPeter (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RoachPeter. Five of the seven references in the linked draft were written by Arnold himself. An acceptable Wikipedia article about Arnold must summarize what reliable sources that are entirely independent of Arnold say about him. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 2 May 2023 review of submission by 2600:1700:A5F:480:D5F5:33E4:8E0D:8D0F

Would like to know what needs to be fixed for approval 2600:1700:A5F:480:D5F5:33E4:8E0D:8D0F (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence in the draft that this person is Notable, and therefore, she is not eligible for a Wikipedia article at this time. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:51, 2 May 2023 review of submission by Waynepua

I'm looking for direction on making sure the page is unbiased but still informs the public about the company. Please advise on what items to include and what to remove. Waynepua (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Waynepua rely on secondary sources that are independent of what the those affiliated with subject have written about the company. For example, if the information is coming from those affiliated such as interviews, press releases/announcements, etc. where the content of the source, even if the source is a third-party, is a regurgitation of what the company/reps say then lean to not include it. However, if is truly independent content where the author/publication (given is it is a reliable source), has done their own analysis, research, etc. then summarize what they say. S0091 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

05:22, 3 May 2023 review of submission by Kailash29792

This must be moved to the mainspace as the film released on 28 April 2023, and reviews have been added. Though copyright issues have been noted, it was later proven here that it was a reverse copy. Either way, it needs a reviewer so it can be brought to the mainspace. Pinging DeluxeVegan, Nthep, DaxServer, Onel5969 and Krimuk2.0. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's the rush? Thee is NO deadline. Theroadislong (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's no deadline for everything, but this film definitely passes WP:NFF as one of the most notable Indian films of the year. Also, there is a deadline for many things. AfCs often take months to years to tend do, and no one wants that with this. See Talk: Ponniyin Selvan: II for the ongoing crisis. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand why you want to go thru AFC when the mainspace article is already available — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 07:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because Onel5969 is relentless to ensure the mainspace article does not exist until the draft is cleared via AfC. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell @Onel5969 that WP is WP:NOTBURO — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 3 May 2023 review of submission by 2A01:CB22:1F2:7000:89A6:C1:3F77:822

Hi, I want to talk about the review of submission. Timothee Vassas is famous, he's a popular writer, he wrote a popular serie which call Murder On Mars. In France and US, the book sold over 200,000 copies making Timothee Vassas a well-known and notable author. 2A01:CB22:1F2:7000:89A6:C1:3F77:822 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay. This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. Did you have question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 3 May 2023 review of submission by Ralexa35

My first draft was declined. I do not know this living artist on a personal level though have interviewed them once. I was wondering if anyone can help me identify which sources I'm using that are not considered reliable/if there are any suggestions on what to delete or modify. Ralexa35 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:15, 3 May 2023 review of submission by Biodam

my page was rejected Biodam (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Biodam: that is correct. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? - DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 3 May 2023 review of submission by CLAloves1bra!

How am I supposed to cite a podcaster and YouTube content creator? This individual, Andrew Heaton, is very publicly active in these areas (YouTube, Patreon, & Spotify), but a previous comment said that they cannot be used as secondary sources. CLAloves1bra! (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed – the links to YouTube, Spotify, and Patreon are neither secondary nor independent, and together with the link to amazon they should be removed. Have a look at the information in the decline notices, and follow the links, which will tell you what kind of sources are required. --bonadea contributions talk 20:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:33, 3 May 2023 review of draft by Darifi11

I want you to help me complete the page by correcting spelling errors and adding a category

Darifi11 (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There would be little point as the draft has zero independent reliable sources and no indication of notability? Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 3 May 2023 review of submission by OctavienC

Hello, I do not understand why my article is 'purely promotional' what do I need to modify? OctavienC (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OctavienC – two different answers to your question; diametrically opposite, yet both equally true:
  • You would have to modify pretty much everything, because the entire draft reads like a corporate brochure; it's what we call ADMASQ. Also, some of the content seems to have been copied, or at least closely paraphrased, from external sources, further necessitating a rewrite.
... and yet...
  • You needn't modify anything, because this draft has been rejected, and will therefore not be considered further.
Finally, you have been asked to disclose your relationship with this subject, but I don't believe you have done so; please do that now. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:25:24, 3 May 2023 review of draft by Biospeleologist


Biospeleologist (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is Conflict of Interest? How to Resolve this Issue? Can't someone create a page about their acquaintance? If Yes, how to disclose it?

Hi there! Conflict of interest is explained here. It does not automatically mean that an article will be declined, but COI editors typically struggle to write neutrally. They also tend to write an article first, then try and find sources to demonstrate the article is sufficiently notable for inclusion. This article is not. No coverage in secondary sources has been provided. The only possibility is that this person may meet our notability guideline for academics. However I checked their citation index and at only 16, I do not believe this person is sufficiently cited to warrant an article without that person also being covered significantly by secondary sources, so I have declined. Thanks MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 3 May 2023 review of submission by 75.103.171.145

Sorry, I'm new-ish to Wikipedia and am interested in Tim Sheehy, a businessman and former Navy Seal who is likely to run for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senator in Montana (I read about him in a Politico article). I saw that someone had created a draft with a good deal of info, but it was rejected for insufficient demand or something. So... there is demand. I just wanted to see if there was any other reason for the article's rejection. 75.103.171.145 (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Welcome. Here at Wikipedia, a person, company, or topic must meet our notability criteria for inclusion. In short, significant, in-depth coverage in many sources is generally required. There are exceptions for specific subjects, but I won't go into those here. I consider @Onel5969 was correct in declining this submission. There is some discussion of the article subject (by the way, well done on at least including some references) however these references are not significant enough to warrant an article. If the individual is actually successful in being elected to national office, they will then become notable. Until then, you'd need quite good coverage to substantiate a claim to notability for a possible electoral candidate. Just remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper or place for anyone ever mentioned by the media to have a profile. This is an encyclopaedia. Based on this, if it was resubmitted, I'd decline it also. Too soon for this person to be included. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

06:26, 4 May 2023 review of submission by Manish Khouriwal

Dear CNMall41,

I recently received notification that my article submission was rejected due to not meeting the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I appreciate your review and feedback and would like to request your advice on how I can improve the article's notability.

Can you provide specific reasons for why the topic was not considered notable and any suggestions on how I can make it more notable? I am eager to make the necessary improvements to the article and meet the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Best regards Manish Khouriwal (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Khouriwal, your draft has four references. At first glance, the most promising is an article in Tech Bullion. Taking a closer look, I noticed that this article was just published today. Looking more closely, I see from their website that TechBullion offers press release publishing, content writing/promotion, and other digital marketing services to financial technology companies, blockchain technology, financial services, and technology businesses globally.. In other words, Tech Bullion is a "pay to play" operation, and not a reliable, independent source. The other three sources are also neither independent nor reliable. In conclusion, the referencing is very poor. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review my draft and for your feedback regarding the referencing. I appreciate your comments and would like to address your concerns.
Regarding the article in Tech Bullion, I understand your skepticism about the source's reliability. I was not aware that Tech Bullion offers press release publishing and other marketing services to financial technology companies. I apologize for including this source without fully researching its background.
In terms of the other three sources, I understand that they may not be considered independent or reliable. I will take your feedback into consideration and work on finding more authoritative sources to support the article.
Thank you again for your feedback. I will revise the draft to improve the referencing and ensure that all sources used are reliable and independent. Manish Khouriwal (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:02, 4 May 2023 review of submission by 49.249.66.146

I want to create this page 49.249.66.146 (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead; drafting starts at WP:YFA. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:03, 4 May 2023 review of submission by Okhutus

I need help with how I can make this article acceptable. Kindly show what I should remove or add. Okhutus (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the decline notice? The submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that's what you need to find currently there is zero indication of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 4 May 2023 review of submission by 205.200.115.1

We are working to edit our page to meet Wikipedia's publishing requirements and are having a difficult time understanding which sources qualify for the page and which don't. We have included 28 sources. Does every source need to tick all of the four boxes - reliable, independent, in-depth, and secondary? Are we required to remove any source that ticks 3>? Please advise. If it's possible to have an agent review with us, that would be extremely helpful. 205.200.115.1 (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia user accounts are strictly for one person's use only. I know you've posted this question from an IP address, but I say that anyway because the draft in question was created by a registered user, which may or may not be you.
Secondly, you need disclose your obvious conflict of interest and likely paid editing status before editing further.
As for your question, no, not all sources need to meet all the WP:GNG criteria, only the ones that you rely on to establish notability. That said, you obviously shouldn't ever cite non-reliable sources, and also non-independent or close primary sources can only be used to support information which is not contentious in any way. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:22, 4 May 2023 review of submission by Madhukogan

Why my draft has been declined? All sources are reliable. I have edited the citation links as per instructed. Please guide me on how do I delete extra reference links at the bottom. Madhukogan (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:38, 4 May 2023 review of submission by Waynepua

Are there any specific recommendations on moving forward with the article to have it published? I have followed the previously stated recommendations, disclosed my conflict of interest, and have cited sources not affiliated with the subject. Waynepua (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Waynepua: no; this article has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 4 May 2023 review of submission by Biospeleologist

What types of references are required? As per my knowledge I have added sufficient support, Can I add the published paper as reference in this regard? Biospeleologist (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Biospeleologist: we need to see either multiple sources that satisfy the WP:GNG notability requirement, or clear evidence to show this person meets WP:NACADEMIC notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 4 May 2023 review of submission by AlreadyYeti

References page formatting will not allow election results box to be placed above it. AlreadyYeti (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:45, 4 May 2023 review of submission by 3rd Party Rap

We been attempting to submit this article for approx 7 yrs. Wiki's initial reason for denial was "not notable". Yet now you can not turn on tv or go online without stumbling across AI Music (iMusic) news reports and discussions. Additionally, I see it was no problem for the FN MEKA (PLAGIARIZED) wiki article to get approved by wikipedia some 6 yrs after we reported it. We were the first to do Ai music, but wikipedia rather promulgate false reports (fake news) that FN Meka was the first AI rap/ virtual rapper. We have cited clear YouTube timestamped publishing video links date that show we did it in 2017 yr ( iObama was before FN Meka; close case). 3rd Party Rap (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Courtesy link: User:3rd Party Rap/sandbox
@3rd Party Rap: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

22:21, 4 May 2023 review of submission by Anh DOS

Hi. Could you please let me know the reason for rejection? We have released the alpha version on Steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/2018740/MetaDOS. We have a reasonable number of follower accross social networks: https://dos.me/MetaDOS. And we also won some prizes: https://help.metados.com/hc/en-us/articles/6914013106191 Anh DOS (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Anh DOS. For a game to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, it needs multiple references to reliable sources that are independent of the subject and that show significant coverage. For example, a review from IGN would help to establish notability. The number of followers you have doesn't change anything. However, this draft has been rejected, and will not be considered further. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:48, 4 May 2023 review of submission by HiDot94

What could we do now to get this page approved? HiDot94 (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @HiDot94. I've taken another look, and I think the draft meets notability guidelines, so I've accepted it. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

06:01, 5 May 2023 review of submission by JennaHTN

Hello, what do you mean by reliable source? The sources that I put which are for some of the articles are not enough? Thanks in advance JennaHTN (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JennaHTN: Instagram, YouTube and SoundCloud are not considered reliable sources, and they account for more than half the citations in this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer DoubleGrazing.
Sources 4 and 5 are articles, okay? I confirm certain references are social networks only to support certain remarks and indeed are not sources JennaHTN (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JennaHTN: there are two separate but related issues to do with referencing. The first is notability, to establish which it is usually enough to cite three solid sources that meet the WP:GNG criteria.
The other is verifiability, which means that every material statement must be supported by a reliable published source where the information can be verified. The reviewer is contending that a large proportion of the draft is either not referenced, or seemingly referenced by sources that are not considered reliable, and either way that part of the content is effectively unsupported. And given that sources 4 and 5 (if, for the sake of the argument, one accepts those as reliable) are both cited in the second paragraph only, that means that potentially the entire rest of the draft is either not referenced, or referenced using non-reliable sources, and therefore unsupported. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, what can I do to publish this article in this state? Should I remove unsourced paragraphs? What exactly do you recommend to improve it? JennaHTN (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could not be accepted as it stands, NONE of the sources are reliable or independent. The topic would need to pass the criteria at WP:NSINGER and currently it does not. Theroadislong (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Theroadislong! Sources 4 and 5 are not reliable and independent?? The other sources I agree since the subject has control over them JennaHTN (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:57, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Madchef81

hello, i tryed to resubmit the entry but i havent received any response...Madchef81 (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Madchef81: this draft hasn't been resubmitted since its most recent decline in February, therefore it is not currently pending review. If you wish to resubmit it, you need to click on that blue 'Resubmit' button when you're ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The draft as it stands is just blatant advertising with no sources, you will need to start again and summarise what reliable independent sources say about the topic. Theroadislong (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"blatant" :D you guys are the worse at comunicating with people! i will try again to make it less obvious, then i drop it, too difficult to pass trough your cencorship Madchef81 (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: I would call that promotional, also; what would you call it?
For starters, the draft doesn't cite a single source, which suggests (or at least leaves the possibility open) that it isn't based on what independent and reliable secondary sources have said, but rather what you wish to say about the organisation.
Wikipedia does not allow promotional content; you may call this 'censorship', we call it policy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know what to call it. in fact i tried to do a normal entry, with links etc but got refused already, with a strange story of having financial gain from it and/or being a payed agent or something. this is rather stupid, Mater Foundationis a NON PROFIT based in switerland that fight hunger and feed people in need, having a wikipedia entry is beneficial to make people know about it. Promotional, Advertisiment et such is business related, profit related. it doesnt apply to us obviously, am i correct? so now i try to add link etc, hopefully you will understand? Madchef81 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: you say "having a wikipedia entry is beneficial to make people know about it", which is pretty much the definition of 'promotional'.
As for the paid editing query, you have yourself indicated some association with the subject ("hi, i am trying again to create the page for my foundation, all the texts are mine or from website i control my self"), and have at least twice tried to get this article published, hence why the matter has been queried. So far, you've not properly disclosed your relationship, as far as I can see at least; you should do so now, as your very next edit, lest you get sanctioned as an undisclosed paid editor.
Finally, a word of advice: Wikipedia is a collaborative effort between volunteers, and generally things work out smoother for everyone when we try to work together with others, rather than lashing out at every opportunity. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, so: i am the founder of the foundation, as i said previously and its also wrote on the entry. get people to know what with do in a, let say, accademic way its very beneficial, it will for example imply that some readers get usefull information to replicate what we do somewhere else in the world. your continuous mention of "paied" implies that we do this for a financial, for profit, end WHICH IT COULDNT BE MORE FAR FROM THE TRUE. i can i prove that to you? materfondazione.com containts all our audits and activity reports for example. i still dont understand you meter of evaluation tho: there are hundreds of pages about non profit foundations that do the same activities... but our foundation is not good? we must be commercial agents!! i dont get it. Madchef81 (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Madchef81: you have by your own admission a close relationship with the subject, therefore you at the very least have a conflict of interest (COI), and you may also come under our paid-editing rules; either way, you must formally disclose your relationship, either on your user page or on the draft's talk page, or preferably both. Whether your organisation is for-profit or not is immaterial here.
'Promotion' doesn't only mean advertising commercial, for-profit businesses, it means publicising your cause, or 'making people aware'; please see this essay, which explains it well: WP:YESPROMO.
In any case, the draft is promotional in tone and content. This is one of the reasons why you shouldn't be writing about yourself or something you're closely affiliated with, because it can be very difficult to write in a neutral manner without putting a 'spin' on things.
Finally, the sources cited in this draft are insufficient to establish notability, therefore I have just declined it. Please see WP:GNG for the notability guideline which the draft must satisfy in order to be accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:24, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Chandrasekharmusic

Why my page is rejected Chandrasekharmusic (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chandrasekharmusic: well, technically it wasn't rejected, it was declined and then speedily deleted, but that's just by the by. The reason this draft wasn't accepted is that it was entirely promotional, with no encyclopaedic content, and no reliable sources. Besides that, you shouldn't be writing about yourself (as I assume this was) in any case, for all the reasons explained at WP:AUTOBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Matthew Tailor

Hello Wikipedia-Editors,

I submitted an article about "Fifty Vinc" for review, a music producer and composer from Germany. It was rejected because I was told the article would not meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO.

Could you explain to my why?

When I read through the WP:MUSICBIO, it says:

- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film.."

- "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria" 

Matthew Tailor (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthew Tailor: that's not my reading of the review (which, incidentally, resulted in a decline, not rejection). I think the reviewer AngusWOOF is asking you to elaborate on which criterion of MUSICBIO the subject meets, and what evidence supports that, rather than saying categorically it doesn't meet MUSICBIO. I'm sure AngusWOOF will correct me if I misinterpreted that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 12:59:44, 5 May 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Reward3


Hello! I'm checking on a draft submission for page on "Pike Powers" which was last edited on March 6 by bpritti. The draft appears to have disappeared. Can you tell its status and/or offer suggestions regarding further edits? I greatly appreciate all the help. Lots of folks are waiting to edit and contribute to the page. THANK YOU! Raye

Reward3 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Reward3: the draft hasn't disappeared, it's still there at Draft:Pike Powers. It hasn't been resubmitted after the March decline, so it will just sit there until six months have passed from the last human edit, at which time it will be deleted as stale. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:22, 5 May 2023 review of submission by Reward3

Hello! I resubmitted a proposed contribution on Pike Powers (John P Powers), incorporating the March 6 suggestions from bprittij. I have not received any comments on the submission, which seems to have been deleted. Can you provide an updated status and a reason for deletion? Thank you so much for your help, Raye Ward Reward3 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1153304382"