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
Requesting assistance regarding Draft:Douglas_Rigby
Line 422: Line 422:


:Hi IP, the draft was deleted as it was deemed blatant advertising. See [[WP:NOTPROMO]]. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
:Hi IP, the draft was deleted as it was deemed blatant advertising. See [[WP:NOTPROMO]]. [[User:S0091|S0091]] ([[User talk:S0091|talk]]) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

== 21:18, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 73.89.211.188 ==
{{Lafc|username=73.89.211.188|ts=21:18, 29 May 2023|draft=Draft:Douglas_Rigby}}
Please review and advise.

I don't understand why this submission was declined.

Reason for decline = Seems to be a genealogical piece, no evidence subject meets WP:GNG.

But it is NOT a genealogical piece and it is supported by valid references from reliable sources, including the New York Times. [[Special:Contributions/73.89.211.188|73.89.211.188]] ([[User talk:73.89.211.188|talk]]) 21:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:18, 29 May 2023

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


May 23

02:09, 23 May 2023 review of submission by Rapmarocedit

Hi, I had submitted a detailed draft, please how to move drave intro page ? Rapmarocedit (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rapmarocedit the draft is declined. Please read through all the information in the decline message and the reviewer's comments. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:19:50, 23 May 2023 review of draft by DoOnlyGoodEveryday

Being new to the Wikipedia community, I would greatly value your input and guidance on whether the article meets the necessary standards for submission. Your expertise and experience would be immensely helpful in improving the article and ensuring its suitability for publication.

DoOnlyGoodEveryday (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoOnlyGoodEveryday: I'm afraid the draft could not be accepted, as it's currently written. For notability per WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage of the subject in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources, but none of the three sources cited meets this standard.
Also, the last three sections of the draft are entirely unreferenced, raising the question where is all that information coming from? Please note that everything you write must be verifiable from reliable published sources – in fact, what you write should only really be a summary (in your own words) of what such sources have said. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:13, 23 May 2023 review of submission by Maormer

Hello. The article I proposed was rejected for the third time. Last time, the reason for the refusal was the lack of reliable sources, and from the discussion with the moderators, I determined which source was in doubt, and replaced it with a more reliable one. To all the others (as far as I understand) there are no complaints. I would like to clarify what exactly I am doing wrong, and whether it makes sense to edit the article or it is better to abandon it. If some sources are in doubt, I can replace them, if some facts seem inappropriate, I will try to remove them. Thank you in advance for your help Maormer (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:07:20, 23 May 2023 review of draft by DanielCro


I tried to publish this article earlier, but the article was moved to draft with the explanation that it is not yet ready for public publication on Wikipedia and that I need to edit it to comply with Wikipedia rules, especially regarding the neutrality of the article and reliable sources of information. I have been working on this article to improve it and meet the wikipedia criteria for publication. Can someone check my article before I send it for review and tell me their opinion, is it good enough to be published on Wikipedia or does it need to be further improved and if so where and how? I would like to point out that I could not find English sources (only Croatian) for this article, because it is a local Croatian organization, important for public life in Croatia. Thank you very much for your help and understanding. I really appreciate that DanielCro

DanielCro (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) DanielCro (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)DanielCro[reply]

@DanielCro: "Can someone check my article before I send it for review" is another way of saying can someone review my draft now. We don't really provide pre-reviews, because they are pretty much the same thing as actual reviews. The draft will be checked when you submit it for review, and when a reviewer decides to review it.
What you can do already now (eg. on the draft talk page) is to highlight the three strongest sources in terms of the WP:GNG notability guideline, namely: being independent and reliable secondary sources, and providing significant coverage of the organisation in question. This will help the reviewers, especially given that you have cited quite a large number of non-English sources (which is perfectly acceptable, just makes the review that much more laborsome for non-Crotian-speakers). Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. What do you think about the text in the article itself? Is it now more in line with Wikipedia rules, from a neutral point of view and not in a promotional style? Is there anything else I can improve in this part? DanielCro (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:43, 23 May 2023 review of submission by 2600:4040:9E66:CF00:4929:1E18:8311:35FB

I launched my multi-award wining publication in 2012. I have featured exclusive stories on Hollywoods top stars such as Scarlett Johansson, Hailee Steinfeld, Joey King, Benicio del Toro, Jennifer Hudson, Regina King; my publication has been on CNN, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc. I have been trying to get a Wikipedia page for AS IF Magazine, yet my request has been denied. I am definitely a legitimate company. What have I been doing wrong to get a denial? 2600:4040:9E66:CF00:4929:1E18:8311:35FB (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have pages, it has articles. I'm having difficulty finding your draft(the link here does not go to it) but your legitimacy is not in doubt, and not the issue. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to tell the world about themselves and what they do or their products. Notability is not inherited by association. A Wikipedia article must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Not every topic merits a Wikipedia article, it depends on the sources. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself or its products, or in its routine business activities, we are interested in what sources unaffiliated with it choose to say is important/significant/influential about the topic. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, if you have a user account (I'm guessing TShoan?), then please log into it.
Secondly, make the mandatory COI / paid editing disclosure, as has been requested on your (TShoan's) talk page.
Then you can request that the G13-deleted draft Draft:AS IF Magazine be returned to you for editing.
Once you're done editing, you are not allowed to publish the article yourself, but must submit it for review via the AfC process.
Let me know if I wrongly connected any of the dots here, or if you have other questions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:27, 23 May 2023 review of submission by Merry chrus

I’m making new article for people who need more detail what is the game about. Merry chrus (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Merry chrus: you don't ask a question, but this draft has been rejected and won't therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:22, 23 May 2023 review of submission by Moxy Rock

FULL DISCLOSURE: Very inexperienced Wiki creator here. Can another wiki user collaborate with me on this article while it is in Draft stage, as it is now? If so, how would they find the Draft after they login with their own credentials?

I have a thousand other questions. Is this the right place to come for future questions of all sorts?

Thank you~~ Moxy Rock (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Moxy Rock I left you a message on your talk page with some hopefully helpful links about editing Wikipedia. Sorry to say, but it is unlikely anyone will collaborate on the draft because we are all volunteers and largely already stretched thin. If I misunderstood your question, let me know. Either way, I suggest reading the notability guidelines for musicians and if you have specific questions about that as it relates to the draft, you can come here. For general editing questions, the better place is the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:34, 23 May 2023 review of submission by Bcampbellisthebest

why did my page get declined? Bcampbellisthebest (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bcampbellisthebest The reason was left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find the reason in the message that said it was declined it only said if I wanted to now why to come here and ask why. Bcampbellisthebest (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bcampbellisthebest You removed the reason, it says "This submission seems to be a test edit and not an article worthy of an encyclopedia. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests, but do not submit for review until you have an article that you want reviewed for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thank you". I restored it as prior reviews must remain on the draft. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

06:24, 24 May 2023 review of submission by HollyNaylor

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance. I have had my draft rejected twice and I am eager to correct any errors and publish this correctly. I have updated the structure of the submission, removed any potential peacock terms and followed up on all the points raised in the previous 2 reviews. Please kindly assist to provide specific details on any areas which require improvement and would enable the draft to be approved. HollyNaylor (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HollyNaylor: you're effectively asking for someone to review your draft, but the way the system works is you have to submit it; a reviewer will then one day pick it up to conduct a review, and provide you with feedback if necessary.
One thing I can tell you immediately, though, is that you need to demonstrate that the subject meets the special WP:NACADEMIC notability standard, because the sources are all close primary ones and therefore do not establish WP:GNG notability at all. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:38:37, 24 May 2023 review of draft by DoOnlyGoodEveryday


I am unsure if the article meets the necessary standards or if it requires further information or improvement. If there are any specific areas require additional information or clarification, please let me know.

DoOnlyGoodEveryday (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DoOnlyGoodEveryday You haven't yet submitted it for a review, we don't do pre-review reviews. When reviewed, the reviewer will leave feedback if they don't accept it. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:10, 24 May 2023 review of submission by Willardthe dump

Why, you can search it in YouTube, I like watching his/her videos. Willardthe dump (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Willardthe dump You liking this person's videos is not on the notability criteria for web content. You offer no independent reliable sources at all to summarize about this person, a must for any article, but especially for articles about living people, where all information must be sourced. This is why your draft was rejected, and will not be considered further. Not every "YouTuber" merits a Wikipedia article- the vast majority do not. If independent sources write about this person and describe their importance/significance/influence, please offer them. Your own opinion is insufficient. If you just want to tell the world about this person or their videos, you should do that on social media. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:38, 24 May 2023 review of submission by Easyvic

I got the comment "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources" on my submission. It is my first article creation and I am wondering what the reviewer meant by this comment after referencing all sources of the information in the article.

Kindly advise if you have useful information about this.

Walter Easyvic (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Easyvic: there is a lot of unreferenced content in your draft. What source gives her DOB? What about the info in the 'Personal life' section? The citations in the 'Early life and education' section look like references, but they just point to the institutions' website home pages, and thus support nothing in this draft. In articles on living people, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal and family details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, many thanks for the clarification. I will attempt to revise the draft and hopefully get a positive nod this time around.
Cheers Easyvic (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:37, 24 May 2023 review of submission by Tayostephen

I would like to find out why this post is rejected. Thank you Tayostephen (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayostephen: because it is entirely promotional, cringingly so. Not to mention that it is unreferenced, which is wholly unacceptable for an article on a living person. Furthermore, it seems to consist of copyvio or closely paraphrased content. For all these reasons, I will ask that it is deleted. Thank you for flagging it up. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:49:54, 24 May 2023 review of draft by Newlywo


Hello, can someone please explain why the review is taking so long?.. I am referring to Draft:Zvi Landsman

Newlywo (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Newlywo: I was going to say that it is only a month since your most recent submission, and we have nearly 5,000 drafts to review, not just yours; that's why it's taking time. However, it was such an obvious decline that I've gone ahead and done that. The 'Biography' and 'Personal life' sections are completely unreferenced, as is the DOB. Please read and understand the guidelines regarding articles on living people at WP:BLP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @DoubleGrazing, as for his DOB, it's on his Hebrew page, which source is reliable for his DOB?
I placed so many cites and this is a well known film director so if you can explain why and what else shoulf be done, it will be great (I am now editing a little the BIO but by the time you will look it will be probably after I am done). Thanks, Newlywo (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Newlywo: what do you mean "on his Hebrew page"; do you mean the Hewbrew Wikipedia article on him? That's completely irrelevant, because a) you cannot expect readers of the English Wikipedia to go hunting for sources on other language versions, and b) in any case you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. If the Hebrew article cites a reliable source for the DOB, then what you do is you cite the same source here; otherwise you remove the unsupported DOB from the draft.
And on a wider point of referencing articles on living people, my advice is for you to read and understand WP:BLP, and to support this draft adequately before resubmitting. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing Wow you are fast... yes I meant his Hebrew but I understand what you wrote. I did some editing and added sources. can you please see now? Newlywo (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 24 May 2023 review of submission by Sun Annie

Hello, may I ask what do I have to do and how can I get this article to be published publicly? Thank you Sun Annie (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sun Annie: you no longer need to do anything, as I have rejected this draft. What was needed was proof of notability, which despite several chances provided wasn't forthcoming. (Also, most of the content was/is unreferenced, although that wasn't why I rejected this.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:01, 24 May 2023 review of submission by Shuffle44

Greetings. I am wondering about next steps for this draft. I reworked the original following its initial rejection, trying to address the source references and tone concerns. I resubmitted the updated version for review but haven't seen any feedback. Are there any additional steps I should take for a second review, or perhaps a step I've missed? I'd welcome your guidance. Thank you! Shuffle44 (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shuffle44: this draft was reviewed and declined on Apr 11, since then you've edited it but haven't resubmitted it, so currently it is not pending a new review. You need to click on that blue 'resubmit' button to send it for another review. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your direction and help. Shuffle44 (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:12, 24 May 2023 review of submission by Mikeylowe77

The basic facts about Queue-Fair.com are only being registered here as an introduction and will be updated as time goes by especially with our high court case against another company who have a wiki page full of inaccuracies!!! Mikeylowe77 (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeylowe77 Wikipedia articles are primarily about what others have written about something, not what organizations have written about themselves. It *might* be possible to write an article if there is any coverage of the High Court Case, but at this point, it isn't even close to being ready.Naraht (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


May 25

00:31, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Kc0uuf

article and subject matter reference multiple Federal links and 3rd party links for reference establishing and need to know about an educational radio station duly licensed. this is the 3rd time our station page has been removed! our official wikipedia worked was permanently banned the other day for attempting to create the page and was flagged his account as spam! then someone redirected our station call letters klzy-lp to kqmy creating a conflict of interest and rerouting any possible reference to klzy to them and potentially a financial loss if wikipedia was used to verify the existence of KLZY. So I get involved the agent of the board and present a new copy with more then adequate federal and 3rd party references. KLZY, KLZY-LP are under the ownership of Chloe Broadcasting Inc and have NO AFFILIATION with kqmy and further no reason the page sohould not be published on the basis of referance. Kc0uuf (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hgnmusic is the username that was perm blocked as spam when he was doing our official wiki work. not only should the page be be create and reference or redirect to KQMY should be remove and Hgnmusic should have there account restored so someone that know wikipedia can continue work on our publication! Kc0uuf (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments, it appears you would have a financial interest in editing Wikipedia. As such, please see WP:PAID and WP:COI and make the appropriate disclosures. In addition, please only edit and submit a single draft. There is one located at Draft:KLZY-LP so no need to submit anything you are working on in your sandbox. You can edit and submit the draft that already exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:32, 25 May 2023 review of submission by TronPuzzle

I would like to have some help in create an article about Pol Corpas Cuatrecasas, how can I make the news reliable TronPuzzle (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TronPuzzle: it's not a question of "making the news reliable" (whatever that means), it's a question of supporting the article contents properly with referencing – for example, which source gives this person's date of birth? And that's just one example, most of the information is unreferenced. This may be partly because you perhaps don't know how to construct references correctly, and for that reason I've suggested that you should look up WP:REFB for advice. (I also have my doubts whether this person is notable, but I'll reserve judgment until proper referencing is there.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Surendaragarwal

Shri Krishnayan Gorakshala Goshala  Courtesy link: Draft:SHREE KRISHNAYAN DESI GAURAKSHA AVAM GOLOKDHAM SEWA SAMITI

Surendaragarwal (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Surendaragarwal: do you have a question you would like to ask? (I will delete most of your post, this is not the place for such content.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:31, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Brar7

This article has been rejected twice due to references and notability. I have added 3 references from news articles. I could not find notability issues as there are several news articles covering this actor. Can you help to resolve issues with this article and make it go live on Wikipedia. I want to resolve issues before resubmitting for review. –Brar (Talk) 11:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning, that resubmission is not possible. Declined means resubmission is possible. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews do not establish notability, as by definition an interview is the person speaking about themselves. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:35, 25 May 2023 review of submission by ABDALLA BIN SAEED1

Request for Assistance in Writing a Wikipedia Article

Dear Wikipedia Editing Community

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to seek your valuable assistance in creating a Wikipedia article for the notable individual, Mohd Kaif, also known as Kaif Yamaan. I believe that Mohd Kaif's significant achievements and impact warrant a comprehensive and informative article on Wikipedia.

Mohd Kaif, a prominent Indian actor and influential social media personality, has captivated audiences with his exceptional talent and creative endeavors. Hailing from Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, Mohd Kaif has emerged as a leading figure in the digital world at a relatively young age. His dedication to producing quality content that ranges from motivational messages to evocative poetry has garnered a substantial following and inspired millions of people worldwide.

Throughout his career, Mohd Kaif has demonstrated a unique blend of authenticity, creativity, and a passion for making a positive impact. His videos, which are known for their inspirational messages and heartfelt expressions, have resonated deeply with his audience, empowering individuals to embrace their true selves and pursue their dreams. Mohd Kaif possesses an exceptional ability to connect with his followers on a personal level, making them feel seen, heard, and understood.

Apart from his digital presence, Mohd Kaif has made significant contributions to the acting industry. Renowned for his natural acting style and his ability to bring characters to life, he has garnered recognition and a strong fan base within the industry. His performances have showcased his versatility, dedication, and undeniable talent, further solidifying his position as a remarkable actor.

Furthermore, Mohd Kaif's influence extends beyond entertainment. As a practicing Muslim, he has used his platform to promote inclusivity, diversity, and cultural understanding. He has been a vocal advocate for unity and has leveraged his popularity to raise awareness about important social issues. Mohd Kaif's impact on individuals and communities goes beyond his artistic endeavors, positioning him as a trailblazer and a source of inspiration.

Given Mohd Kaif's significant accomplishments, his influence in the digital realm, and his contributions to the entertainment industry, I believe that a comprehensive Wikipedia article would provide an accurate and well-rounded representation of his life and work.

I am committed to providing reliable sources to support the information in the article, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I kindly request your assistance in structuring the article, properly citing sources, and ensuring that it meets the standards set by the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for considering my request, and I sincerely appreciate any support or guidance you can offer to help create a well-researched and well-written Wikipedia article on Mohd Kaif.

Warm regards, Abdalla Bin Saeed 

ABDALLA BIN SAEED1 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ABDALLA BIN SAEED1: this draft was deleted because it was promotional, with no evidence that the subject is notable. You are welcome to write about this topic, but you must do so in a neutral and factual manner, referencing independent and reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. In fact, combining both those points, you shouldn't write what or how you want to write about this person, you should only really summarise (in your own words, but without putting any sort of spin or slant on it) what published sources have previously said about the subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:37, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Abidalikashmiri

I want to create an article for a fictional book. I have already submitted for review but it has been declined and I don't know the reasons. May you help please Abidalikashmiri (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abidalikashmiri: you're welcome to write about any topic (within reason and some qualifiers) that is notable. If your 'fictional' book (which I assume means just that, not merely a book of fiction) only exists in your imagination, then it won't have received any coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources, let alone won any major literary awards etc., and therefore is rather unlikely to be notable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Courtesy link: Draft:A War Already Lost - I think they meant this draft McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, thanks; seems I caught the wrong end of this particular stick... apart from the point about lack of notability, perhaps. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disputing Declined Articles for creation: Geodatabase (Esri)

Posting this on behalf of Bplewe as I'm invested in this as well and a bit frustrated.

Among GIS users, Geodatabases are one of the single most common file types. There are textbooks on them from both ESRI and 3rd party publishers.[1] Geodatabases are designed to largely replace the Shapefile, another ESRI file type that has its own page. The page Spatial database mentions them briefly, but geodatabases are among the most common types of spatial database. While they are an ESRI file format, open source software like QGIS uses them as well.

In my opinion, the page Draft:Geodatabase (Esri) is a good start in describing these. As a professional geographer, I use these every day. As a TA, I've helped teach an entire course titled "Geodatabase design," and every GIS class I've taken, taught, or helped teach has involved them to some degree. While the draft needs work (as does all of Wikipedia), I argue that this is an incredibly important topic for someone trying to understand the current state of GIS.

Failing this, the content in the draft of Geodatabases should be merged into a very large section on the spatial database page.

I fail to understand why this page is declined when other similar pages, that are less well cited, exist.

Thank you for your time. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Nasser, Hussein (June 2014). Learning ArcGIS Geodatabases. PACKT. ISBN 978-1-78398-864-8.
Hi @GeogSage: taking your last point first, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't assess drafts with reference to existing articles, but with reference to the applicable guidelines and policies. There undoubtedly are articles out there which are not perfect, but that does not mean we should intentionally create more such problems. (And if you have come across any that you feel don't meet the required standards for publication, feel free to improve them or else start deletion proceedings.)
This draft has been declined for apparent lack of notability. As I'm sure you know as an experienced Wikipedian, notability doesn't arise from how 'popular' or 'important' or 'commonly-used' etc. something is; it arises (in most cases, including this) from significant coverage the subject has received in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. If the authors of this draft can cite sources which are sufficient in quality and quantity to satisfy the WP:GNG notability standard, this draft may be accepted; otherwise, not. As noted by the reviewers, primary sources aren't enough to establish notability. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. The point comparing to existing articles conceded, I strongly disagree with the decision that this topic is lacking notability.
In the document, we attempted to be both accurate and cite outside topics. ESRI Press in GIS produces textbooks and media on their software, which can be hard to avoid as they are often the best sources to actually describe the topic. Where it wasn't awkward, we did try to bring in outside textbooks and journal articles, however. We included one textbook that was 3rd party[1], and two peer reviewed journals[2][3] that use the word "geodatabase" in the title. We also included several textbooks that touch on the topic but don't use it in the title. A quick search on google scholar here shows many peer reviewed journals using the word "geodatabase" in their title. While the article might be a start class, I think there is enough information to show that it is noteable. According to Wikipedia:Notability, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." I believe that the scope of the topic demonstrated by a casual search on Google Scholar should be enough to meet this criteria. Digging deeper into the literature, we could look at the studies that employ geodatabases anywhere in their methodology and include many redundant citations. In future iterations of this article, an "applications" section could be included that could reference these articles in more detail, but I believe that is unnecessary for notability.
The notability already demonstrated with just the two peer reviewed journal articles, combined with multiple textbooks, 3rd party postings, and documentation from ESRI seems adequate in my opinion. According to the Help:Referencing for beginners page, the two peer reviewed journals and textbooks are good sources. My concern is that if we were to simply remove the ~19 ESRI citations, and leave the 2 Peer reviewed journals, ~5 independent GIS textbooks, and independent websites, this would appear more noteable to editors but drop in quality. ESRI Press text books are published by the company that created geodatabases, but are authored by highly authoritative GIS professionals and are widely used in GIS classes and by professionals (and heavily cited on various GIS Wikipedia pages). Based on the Referencing for beginners wiki, while these textbooks are published by ESRI, they are authored by autoreactive sources and can be able to help establish notability. Based on Wikipedia's definitions, many of the ESRI press books are not primary sources, and are either secondary sources or tertiary. Secondary sources do not need to be independent of the topic to be secondary sources. In terms of content, the ESRI press books often provide better actual information on the topic then many of the assorted peer reviewed journals that make extensive use of them, but don't actually describe them in much detail. These books are often cited in peer reviewed journals to define key topics, and excluding them would make it difficult to write about many GIS topics. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GeogSage: I'm not entirely sure what you want us here at the help desk to do? There is little point in debating the matter; the reviewers have expressed their opinion, and I've tried to expand on that, but if you're convinced that we're all wrong and the subject is genuinely notable, then you don't need to convince us – assuming you or the draft creator don't have a conflict of interest, you're welcome to move this to the main article space, given that you have extended confirmed rights. New page patrol will then run the ruler over it (and if it helps, I'm more than happy to recuse myself from that task) and decide its fate. Just be aware that if NPP sends it back to drafts, you're then stuck with us again; alternatively, they can propose deletion, and if that goes ahead then that in itself will make it more difficult to publish an article on this topic in the future). Having said all that, please proceed as you see fit. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thanks for the feedback and assistance. I'm not the originator, but have been helping, so I don't know if it was already bumped from a mainspace page to drafts or not yet. I don't particularly want it and move it to mainspace unilaterally when it has already shown to be controversial, especially since the majority is not my personal work, and came here for I guess second/third opinions on the matter. I'm just a bit frustrated with this process at the moment, and am a bit dumbfounded that this of all topics is having a hard time making it. I'll create a section on applications and add to the talk page on the draft the link to the Google Scholar search results, and we'll go around submitting it again. Thanks again for the help. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 13:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Nasser, Hussein (June 2014). Learning ArcGIS Geodatabases. PACKT. ISBN 978-1-78398-864-8.
  2. ^ Mathiyalagan, V.; Grunwald, S.; Reddy, K.R.; Bloom, S.A. (April 2005). "A WebGIS and geodatabase for Florida's wetlands". Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 47 (1): 69–75. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2004.08.003. Retrieved 31 January 2023.
  3. ^ Chesnaux, Romain; Lambert, Mélanie; Walter, Julien; Fillastre, Ugo; Hay, Murray; Rouleau, Alain; Daigneault, Réal; Moisan, Annie; Germaneau, Denis (November 2011). "Building a geodatabase for mapping hydrogeological features and 3D modeling of groundwater systems: Application to the Saguenay–Lac-St.-Jean region, Canada". Computers & Geosciences. 37 (11): 1870–1882. Bibcode:2011CG.....37.1870C. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2011.04.013. Retrieved 31 January 2023.

16:00, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Brar7

I have rewritten this article to include more information and also addressed copyright and references issues. Can you please review this again and move to Wikipedia from Drafts. Submitted for review. –Brar (Talk) 16:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brar7: now that you have resubmitted it, it will be reviewed when a reviewer comes across it, which may take days, weeks or longer. We don't provide fast-track re-reviews upon demand. Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article was rejected twice. I just want to know if the issues are addressed or anything more need to be done. I can still edit the article to improve it while waiting for approval. –Brar (Talk) 16:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Three suggestions;
1. Facts and citations
Example: You said, "Vyom Yadav is a young Indian actor."
Do you have a reference for someone saying he's a young Indian actor?
How can I, as a reader, check that it's true?
If someone edits the article and says he is old, how will I know the truth?
You said, "Vyom Yadav made his Bollywood debut with the Rajkummar Rao starrer film Badhaai".
Do you have a reference stating that?
...and so on.
2. Plagiarism. You said, "Vyom's parents initially desired a certain level of certainty in his career.". The reference says, "The actor revealed that his parents wanted of certainty in the child’s career.". See WP:PARAPHRASE.
3. Hyperbole. "highly acclaimed", "widespread praise", "gained more exposure and recognition", "a significant impact", "talented grassroots-level actors", etc.
These are opinions, not facts.
WP:WEASEL
Above all, see WP:COI. Best of luck. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Klesatp

I've been tasked with creating a wiki page for etf.com to coincide with it's rebrand and relaunch. We've been going back and forth with submission declines. After numerous attempts to get the page accepted I'm reaching out to get some assistance on what exactly I can do to get this approved.

This is a task coming straight from the CEO. The article is not meant to read as an advertisement and just background on what etf.com is and help people when searching for us. Many other publications have a wiki that is written similar and they've been approved. Any clarification or feedback that you could provide would be much appreciated. Klesatp (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia your draft was just blatant advertising and will soon be deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Klesatp Have your boss read the page Theroadislong suggests too, as well as this message. You and your boss have a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for businesses to tell the world about themselves and what they do. It also is not a place to help marketing and rebranding efforts, or search results. We have no interest in any of that. This is an encyclopedia with criteria for inclusion, called notability- such as the definition of a notable company. Not every company merits a Wikipedia article, even within the same field. It depends on coverage in independent reliable sources. A company must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources that choose on their own to write about it, not based on materials from the company.
Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other poor articles does not mean that more should be added. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible to get inappropriate content past us. We can only address what we know about. That an article exists does not mean that it was "approved" by anyone. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. If you would like to help us out, you can identify these other articles you have seen for possible action. We could use the help. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:42, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Calverson0204

The page was deleted because of advertising which I plan to fix and put more in a neutral tone so it is accepted. However, I lost all of the code stuff that was already in the source and do not know how to get that back. Calverson0204 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the infobox, I would worry less about that and more about meeting the notability requirements for authors and sourcing from reliable sources to summarize. Please read Your First Article. If you are associated with this person, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:30, 25 May 2023 review of submission by 86.24.168.231

Help please. This clearly meets GNG, but I've been repeatedly admonished for submitting it. I added appropriate references, and a few more sentences. The big "STOP" message is quite alarming. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it should be. It was twice declined and now it has been rejected with the message: "This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia," so, I'm sorry to say, it will not be considered further. ww2censor (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have eight sources to support a single line; that is reference bombing. I suggest that you review WP:GNG again; if this person meets it, you have not demonstrated that through a summary of what independent reliable sources say about them. That's why it was rejected. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "reference bombing", because the references are substantially about the person. 86.24.168.231 (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:31, 25 May 2023 review of submission by Chandrasekharmusic

How much time taken to review my page. Chandrasekharmusic (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OP blocked for promotion. 331dot (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

07:20, 26 May 2023 review of submission by Jolefigliomeni

Why is declined the wikipedia page? Jolefigliomeni (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolefigliomeni: this draft was declined because it is promotional, inadequately referenced, and with no evidence of notability. Which is pretty much what it says in the decline notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jolefigliomeni, your draft biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced, which is a policy violation. It is extremely brief and written in very poor English. It fails to make a convincing case that the person is actually notable. I recommend thst you read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Cullen328 (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 26 May 2023 review of submission by JacomeC

I would like to know what I can improve, specifically, in order to get this article approved. From my point of you, the article is written objectively, because it is basically just stating facts and numbers. Also, I have included all the references the company has in the media (most of them are in the Portuguese media, not in English, but they are still valid sources). Can you help, please? JacomeC (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JacomeC: for starters, most of the draft is unreferenced. My guess is you've just written what your employer or client told you to write, which isn't what you should do. You need to find reliable and independent published sources (preferably secondary), and summarise what they have said about this company, citing your sources as you go so that we can verify the information and ascertain whether the company is notable per WP:GNG.
There is also nothing in this draft that distinguishes the company or tells us why it warrants an article in a global encyclopaedia; the draft simply describes a very ROTM business. As such, I can only assume that the purpose of this draft is to 'spread awareness' of the company, which is another way of saying to promote it, and promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but I have written the article in this way because I have seen many other companies' Wikipedia pages written like that. Some of them, in my opinion, are much more promotion-centered.
The references I have used are the only ones the company has in the media - there are a couple more about wanting to recruit new employees for the Portuguese market, but I didn't think they were relevant.
So just to clear this up, a couple of questions:
1) What you are saying is that because this company is not as relevant or referenced as other similar companies, it is not worth having a Wikipedia page?
2) The fact that the company doesn't have anymore relevant independent references means it can't ever get approved unless it grows in that way? JacomeC (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JacomeC: Wikipedia summarises what reliable published sources have previously said about a subject; from this it follows that if no such sources can be found, then it isn't possible to summarise what they have said, and it therefore isn't possible to have a Wikipedia article on the said subject. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:11, 26 May 2023 review of submission by Hannydevelop

Hello, I'm a first time writer so I'm finding it difficult understanding some of the rules. I started an article for a non-profit organisation that I have no affiliation with. The reason I started the article is because I was reading about Women who code and saw that an organisation like that is present in Nigeria. However, the article's draft keeps getting declined because of a COI. Would anyone be so kind to tell me what needs changing or removing? I have read the notability, advertisement and COI articles. Hannydevelop (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannydevelop: I haven't been involved in reviewing this, but having just looked over your talk page and edit history, I can understand why someone might think you have a conflict of interest – this is the only topic you've written on, you've uploaded photos of the organisation as your 'own work', you keep removing maintenance tags (incl. COI) and moving the draft into the main space without waiting for the AfC process to complete.
And FWIW, I do agree with the last reviewer in that this has a promotional tone throughout: it's not a question of a particular word or expression that needs changing, but the overall POV – it reads like it is trying to 'sell' me the initiative, or convince me how worthwhile and beneficial it is (which it probably is, but an encyclopaedia article shouldn't describe it as such). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that.
1. This is the first article I've written, although I've done some edits.
2. I removed COI tags because they were added without any hint or notice on what I should've done.
3. I read the Wikipedia article on how articles can be moved and realised I could move them.
4. I have never left any message about the article unread or removed in my talk page because I want to be as open as possible Hannydevelop (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your obvious connection to She Code Africa, as revealed by a cursory Google search. Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:36, 26 May 2023 review of submission by Mk78134

Hi! I included all of the sources and from what I can tell they are all reliable. I'm just wondering if I did the submission wrong or do I need to use other sources? Mk78134 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk78134: firstly, as this is about a living person, per WP:BLP you need to cite your sources inline, not just list them at the end as general references. See WP:REFB for advice.
The sources have to be published, internal documents and the like are not acceptable.
If the sources are only available offline, then you need to provide sufficient details to enable them to be verified if need be. Currently you're providing next to no useful information about the sources.
I must also say that if this is all there is, then the subject is almost certainly not notable enough to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopaedia.
You should also read and understand WP:AUTOBIO for all the reasons why writing about yourself is not a good idea.
And finally, I'm assuming you know that the title Draft:Manish Kumar has been protected, and that's why you've added the 'MBA' to the end (which shouldn't be there, BTW, per WP:TITLESINTITLES); this can be considered gaming the system, and may get you into trouble. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Draft deleted, user indeffed.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:21, 26 May 2023 review of submission by Scottalexeden

Why was my article rejected? 

Scottalexeden (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft biography of a living person is entirely unreferenced, which is a policy violation. Read Verifiability. It is also overtly promotional, which is another policy violation. Read the Neutral point of view. Promotional activity is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:53, 26 May 2023 review of submission by 187.252.197.9

Check if it meets the notability and references help 187.252.197.9 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the draft has already been reviewed and rejected, meaning it will no longer be considered. None of the sources are reliable. S0091 (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:30, 26 May 2023 review of submission by 187.252.197.9

I have liked more references and corrected the text 187.252.197.9 (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is overtly promotional and very poorly referenced. It is not acceptable for this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

09:28, 27 May 2023 review of submission by Alihhassan43

I need help to draft my article Alihhassan43 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alihhassan43: The decline notice provides advise and links on what you need to do. Please read them all and add reliable inline citations to the article before resubmitting. ww2censor (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:37, 27 May 2023 review of submission by Alihhassan43

what is wrong that needs to be corrected Alihhassan43 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alihhassan43 Please see the message left by the reviewer at the top of the draft. Please also read the autobiography policy; while not absolutely forbidden, writing about yourself is highly discouraged. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alihhassan43 The photo of yourself does not appear to be a selfie, but you claim it as your own work. If you did not take the image, you can't say it's your own work. Typically, the photographer owns the copyright, not the subject. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:12, 27 May 2023 review of submission by Itsthakurrr

why my articles was declined? Itsthakurrr (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:49, 27 May 2023 review of submission by Itsthakurrr

My name is krishna singh thakur and i am releasing my own album of 7 songs, i am working in this industry from last 8 year, i need this Wikipedia page because of authenticity, Wikipedia is top website for authenticity any artist or individuals, please publish my page.

IMDB: [1] Itsthakurrr (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • So your admitting you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote yourself - that is not what an Encyclopedia is for. Also what you wrote about yourself on IMDB is not a valid source. KylieTastic (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

14:00, 28 May 2023 review of submission by Michael Mike Macapagal

is the information not enough ? 

Michael Mike Macapagal (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:50, 28 May 2023 review of draft by 154.126.9.227


154.126.9.227 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, and your edit history under this IP only shows one previous edit, the creation of Draft:Manley Jeoffrey which is blank apart from the template. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:25, 28 May 2023 review of submission by Hoshya george harvey

Reliable sources Could you tell me in a more understandable way what reliable resources are Hoshya george harvey (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hoshya george harvey the best sources have no affiliation to the subject, have editorial oversight and a history of fact-checking, such as a reputable newspaper. I see one of the issues with the draft is much of the content is unsourced such as the section about the school houses. If no reputable sources exist to support that content then remove it, same with the other unsourced content. An encyclopedia article should only summarize what reliable sources have written about a subject. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


May 29

00:04, 29 May 2023 review of submission by GR8M8

The article that was submitted and rejected. A neutral point of view was taken into consideration, and the article was provided with properly formatted references and citations. The user BuySomeApples reason for the rejection was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. While I appreciate BuySomeApples pointing out the Four Pillars, without providing any specifics to potentially correct the article for submission, and because of the ambiguous nature of the rejection, I would like to ask the Help Desk if they may be able to provide some assistance regarding this.

Looking forward to hearing back. SP1111 00:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@GR8M8: firstly, there is no need to "correct the article for submission", as this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further.
I don't quite see what you mean when you say "neutral point of view was taken into consideration". This seems to me a borderline attack page.
In any case, for an article to be accepted into Wikipedia, the subject must be notable. Usually (per WP:GNG) this requires significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Your draft cites none of these.
Investigative journalism certainly has a place in this world, but Wikipedia is not that place. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarity. The quote you referenced was from Wikipedia's Four Pillars, not from me personally. I was pointing out my neutral point of view from one of those pillars.
On your last point, I appreciate your input and will take this into consideration moving forward with any future submissions. This is my first submission for an article, so I do appreciate the help. SP1111 16:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GR8M8 (talk • contribs)

03:48, 29 May 2023 review of submission by Realisticboredom

Would it be ok for the Alice Megan & Friends article to exist if i cant find any information from in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent, sources? Realisticboredom (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Realisticboredom: no, it would not "be ok for [this] to exist", because verifiability and notability are core requirements for any article to be published in Wikipedia, and both rely essentially on reliable published sources. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:42, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1

my article was enough to be accepted in fact more than enough 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the content "kogama is a fun and cool gaming website everything is user created and if you wanna have a chance to make a game then create an account" which is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article however well sourced you think it is. Theroadislong (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
pls i need an article 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and i used independent and reliable scources 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and i have made a draft link: Draft:Kogama 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:ECBD:F08:ABF:5DE1 (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both drafts Draft:Kogama and Draft:Kogama gaming website are awaiting deletion. Please don't create any more. (Also, take a look at WP:CIR.) Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both drafts have been deleted as advertising. If any further promotional content is submitted, this user will be blocked. Deb (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:13, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 103.58.41.2

Why you have rejected my article? 103.58.41.2 (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's pure advertising, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:13, 29 May 2023 review of submission by PSS356

Hi, I would like assistance editing the content to meet Wikipedia's requirements. So I would be glad for help and advice.

For more clarity, I have no connection to Webit. As I wrote to you, the founder is a very popular Bulgarian. From there, I learned about Webit, which is a good reason to be proud as Bulgarians. I believe that it will be good to create a Wikipedia page about the event.

I know that it must not be sponsored or paid for by someone to create such a page. I was surprised that the content was taken as being advertised.

I am interested in learning to create articles for Wikipedia. That's why I really need your help. I hope I can meet Wikipedia's requirements and achieve success in creating a page for this event. PSS356 (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PSS356 If you wish to address a specific user, you should use their user talk page to communicate with them directly. (in this case User talk:Rich Smith)
Just for reference here 331dot, PSS356 tried to get advice on IRC but kept getting disconnected, so I advise they post here instead, they were not trying to address me directly (hence why I removed the @ at the top of their message) - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer you, though- please see the advice left on your draft by reviewers. You have provided numerous references(too many, really) but none of them have significant coverage of this event, discussing its importance/significance/influence as the source sees it, and demonstrating that this event meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable event.
Just for your information, it is not forbidden for someone to make edits for payment, either specifically or through a relationship like employment, but the Terms of Use require paid editing to be disclosed- see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:57, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 2A02:A465:D0BF:1:4168:C1E3:3C73:1B00

The reason for rejecting the current article on "Christoph Lüthy" argues that "all the sources are associated with Christoph Lüthy". This is not surprising given that this person is the subject of this voice. The important element seems to be that these sources have not been WRITTEN by Christoph Lüthy. For example, the website of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science is an independent source, as are the webpages of Brill Academic Publisher and the news site of Radboud University. Of course, all these sources mention Christoph Lüthy, which is why they are cited in support of the affirmations about him, but they have not been written by him. So how else could one find an independent source? Best regards, Gottardo 

2A02:A465:D0BF:1:4168:C1E3:3C73:1B00 (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are trying to say that you are writing about yourself? While this is not forbidden, it is highly discouraged. Please read the autobiography policy. The issue is not that the sources mention Christoph Lüthy, it is that they are all associated with him, such as places where he works. Wikipedia wants to know what independent reliable sources say about Christoph Lüthy without any involvement from him, not what things he is associated with say about him. If there are no such sources, he would not merit an article at this time. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 37.60.109.79

My article submission was denied 37.60.109.79 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are Codix1234, remember to log in before posting. Yes, your draft was declined. It is one sentence with one source- an article about a person must summarize what multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:29, 29 May 2023 review of submission by Faraday5858

Flex LNG has a unique business story, and is also very relevant today given the energy shortage we have experienced in Europe. Hence - I would like ideas on how the site can be approved. Faraday5858 (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of that indicates how they would pass the criteria at WP:NCORP so it has been rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:26, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:71E6:5FF0:93F9:A6F1

i need an idea of what to add to this 2404:4402:23F7:2B00:71E6:5FF0:93F9:A6F1 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the draft was deleted as it was deemed blatant advertising. See WP:NOTPROMO. S0091 (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:18, 29 May 2023 review of submission by 73.89.211.188

Please review and advise.

I don't understand why this submission was declined.

Reason for decline = Seems to be a genealogical piece, no evidence subject meets WP:GNG.

But it is NOT a genealogical piece and it is supported by valid references from reliable sources, including the New York Times. 73.89.211.188 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1157620707"