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
Line 552: Line 552:
::::I know. I’m trying to find more sources but there’s not enough I can find. I was hopping to get some advice from this since it told me to. [[Special:Contributions/107.77.198.34|107.77.198.34]] ([[User talk:107.77.198.34|talk]]) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
::::I know. I’m trying to find more sources but there’s not enough I can find. I was hopping to get some advice from this since it told me to. [[Special:Contributions/107.77.198.34|107.77.198.34]] ([[User talk:107.77.198.34|talk]]) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Oh okay, now I get your original question – you're asking if ''we'' have any sources for this draft? No, we don't, and that's not really how it works; the onus is on the article author(s) to come up with the necessary sources. That said, I suppose you can always ask at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games]]? -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Oh okay, now I get your original question – you're asking if ''we'' have any sources for this draft? No, we don't, and that's not really how it works; the onus is on the article author(s) to come up with the necessary sources. That said, I suppose you can always ask at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games]]? -- [[User:DoubleGrazing|DoubleGrazing]] ([[User talk:DoubleGrazing|talk]]) 16:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the advice. I’ll ask them for help. [[Special:Contributions/64.56.17.172|64.56.17.172]] ([[User talk:64.56.17.172|talk]]) 17:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


== 16:38, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Black Dragon024 ==
== 16:38, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Black Dragon024 ==

Revision as of 17:34, 16 July 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


July 8

01:39, 8 July 2023 review of submission by Derivadeb

Laura Cazzaniga and Laura Pinta Cazzaniga she is known as the same person. I need to create a voice Laura Pinta Cazzaniga to redirect to Laura Cazzaniga. Is the same person. Derivadeb (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Derivadeb: as was already pointed out when Draft:Laura Pinta Cazzaniga was rejected, redirects from alternative names can only be created once the target article has been published, and Draft:Laura Cazzaniga is still pending review (and won't be accepted as it currently stands, I can tell you that already now). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks. if they explain to me what changes to implement I will make them. Derivadeb (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear how you pass WP:NARTIST? Theroadislong (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Articles for Fictional Characters with Social Media Presence

What is the protocol for creating articles for fictional characters on social media?

For example, the Instagram page @Mister_Ratchet is an active blog featuring a fictional character. Similar to characters such as Grumpy Cat, the owner posts on the character's behalf. What are the requirements for notability in this case? OminousOpossum08 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OminousOpossum08: the requirements are pretty much the same as for anything, namely that the character must meet the WP:GNG notability standard; see WP:FICTION. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OminousOpossum08 You might like to look at some examples of articles about fictional characters, such as Spock, Ebenezer Scrooge, Mario, Bowser, Frasier Crane. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:51, 8 July 2023 review of submission by Rohanacharekar1999

can you please help me out with this artical , i want to know exactly what should i edit Rohanacharekar1999 (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft was rejected and won't be considered further. Furthermore, it was blatant promotion and deleted as such. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:16, 8 July 2023 review of submission by Mahannobe91

you shut the duck up im just a user that design a sandbox page what do you want Mahannobe91 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You submitted it for review as a proposed article, you don't have to submit a sandbox for review. Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:17, 8 July 2023 review of submission by M.parvage

This article has lots of reliable sources. But it has been declined. I also updated many sources later, but can't agree with the issue. PARVAGE talk! 17:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @M.parvage. At the moment I think the article is suffering from Wikipedia:Citation overkill. Ironically this makes it really difficult for editors to actually verify the information in the article draft because there are so many citations.
Instead, please pick out three of the strongest citations that you think are relevant. These three citations must be independent of Ghulam (not an interview, not from his website, etc), they must be independent of each other, they must be secondary, and they must be reliable.
There's also a bunch of non-neutral language in the article (e.g. "sparked his passion", "highly regarded individual"). All Wikipedia articles must be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please read the guide Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words that may introduce bias which explains the type of language and tone we do not expect to see on an article. Qcne (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Qcne, Thanks for this wonderful guidance. I edited the article according. Hope it will be accepted soon. But if there still have any issue you found. Please let me know.-- PARVAGE talk! 20:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you reject my draft?

I created a draft Abdel-Fattah Al-Qadi, but she refused, claiming that she does not achieve notability, I'm surprised by that because this man is one of the most important scholars of Qira'at in the twentieth century

There is an article about him in the Arabic Wikipedia, and all I did was that I translated this article except that I could not put the infobox correctly

أحمد محمد فرج شرف (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft only had one source (three times) which doesn't necessarily help illustrate how notable this scholar is. Other Wikipedia's have their own notability guidelines, some stricter than others. See WP:NSCHOLAR for advice on what to improve. It's also best to review machine translations because inaccuracies might occur. Karnataka (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @أحمد محمد فرج شرف each language Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines so an article acceptable in one language may not be acceptable in another and vice versa, with the English Wikipedia generally being the most stringent. Here what is most important is what others have written about a subject, not what the subject has written or said. The draft was declined rather than rejected, meaning you have the opportunity to improve it. I also suggest toning down the peacock language. S0091 (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

Request on 03:51:56, 9 July 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Jayneelyn


Hi, I would like to ask for assistance for my article. I have provided sources but apparently, it's not enough to support my article. I understand that there are few articles that can be found online, can you suggest ways on how to improve my article? Thank you in advance.

Jayneelyn (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online. Instead of writing the article and then looking for sources, you should have the sources first so you can summarize them, see WP:BACKWARD. If there are insufficient sources to establish notability, Mr. Kelly would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. If he is paying you as you state, I would suggest that you return his money and tell him that what he wants is not possible at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:45, 9 July 2023 review of submission by Nansyy


I hope this letter finds you in good health. I am writing to seek your assistance regarding an article titled "How to Overcome Challenges in Life." I understand that the article was rejected for not meeting the notability criteria for Wikipedia page creation two months ago. However, I firmly believe that the article has now met the required notability standards and would greatly appreciate if you could review it again.

Since the previous rejection, I have taken several steps to enhance the article's notability and ensure it meets the necessary guidelines. Firstly, I have conducted extensive research on similar articles and revised the content to include more credible sources and references from reliable publications. Additionally, I have expanded the topic to cover a wide range of challenges faced by individuals in various aspects of life.

Furthermore, I have sought feedback from experts and professionals in the field who have recognized the significance of this article. Their insights and endorsements have further reinforced the importance of discussing effective strategies to overcome challenges, as it serves as a source of motivation and guidance for many individuals.

I genuinely believe that the revised article now meets all the criteria outlined in the Wikipedia notability guidelines. It provides valuable insights, actionable tips, and real-life examples to help readers tackle the obstacles they encounter on a personal and professional level.

I kindly request your assistance in reevaluating the article and considering its publication on Wikipedia. I would be more than willing to provide any additional information or evidence to support the article's notability, if required.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I eagerly await your response and appreciate any support you can provide.

Nansyy (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nansyy.
Your draft article was Rejected and will not be considered further. In it's current state it is still entirely unacceptable for a Wikipedia article and would be rejected again immediately.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a how-to guide. The bulk of your article is trying to guide readers on how to "overcome challenges". This is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia and leads me to think you don't really understand what Wikipedia is.
Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which details the purpose of Wikipedia. In essence, articles only exist to summarise what independent, third party, secondary sources state about a topic. Your article does not do that.
Most of your sources were also totally inappropriate: you cited a Google search twice, an eBay listing, GoodReads, Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other random purchases etc. These are all Wikipedia:Primary sources and cannot be used to establish Wikipedia:Notability. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources which explains why we require all articles to have robust secondary references.
It might be worth reading Wikipedia:Your first article which gives you the dos and don'ts of creating an article, and Wikipedia:Five pillars which detail the fundamental principles of Wikipedia.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also wonder if you generated your message above via a Large Language Model like ChatGPT? It has the hallmarks of being written by a chatbot. Qcne (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Qcne I think you misread the article its not actually a "how-to guide" but about a book (that probably is a "how-to guide"). Still not notable. KylieTastic (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the first paragraph is about the book, but everything after Chapter One seems to be generic advice straight out of a blog post. Maybe it's summarising the book contents...? Qcne (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please what should I do, there no way to resubmit my article Nansyy (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nansyy Please do not create a new section for every comment, just edit this existing section. There is no way to resubmit it because, as you were told, rejection means that it will not be considered again at this time. Please heed the excellent comments by Qcne. 331dot (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 9 July 2023 review of submission by Simra fatima

why my article is submission get rejected Simra fatima (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Simra fatima
All articles about living people must pass the strict Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold: you have provided no evidence you meet this threshold, which means you are unfortunately not notable by Wikipedia standards so cannot have an article at this time.
We also highly discourage you from writing an article about yourself due to the clear conflict of interest!
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:45, 9 July 2023 review of submission by Vraj Vaidya

Doing I'm constructive but I'm not Vraj Vraj Vaidya (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your article. I don't want to talk about you or your name. But your topic is completely not notable. See WP:Notability, and you will understand the matter. Thanks PARVAGE talk! 17:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:49:23, 9 July 2023 review of draft by M.parvage

Hello, This article was declined previously. Then I requested for help here and did a few changes as per the guidances. Now, can anyone please check the article and tell me that is there has any issues or nor! Thanks in advance --PARVAGE talk! 17:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:54, 9 July 2023 review of submission by Vraj Vaidya

Please accept my friends article and draft Vraj Vaidya (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Vraj Vaidya. Your article has been rejected and will not be considered further. There is nothing you can do.
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is not a social media site like Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and only topics that meet our Wikipedia:Notability threshold can have an article.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vraj Vaidya, It is not a place to request for accepting. If you continuously doing post related this topic. You may get banned 🚫. And also you mentioned that you have a connection with the topic. So do not work on it anymore. Thanks PARVAGE talk! 18:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 9 July 2023 review of submission by OMDPublicAffairs

Would like to provide updated information for 82nd_Troop_Command, which is a sister brigade in the Oregon National Guard. How can the updates get published? Thank you for your time and assistance. OMDPublicAffairs (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As your topic wasn't not met the standard of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So you can put information with sources in the page of Oregon Army National Guard. Thanks PARVAGE talk! 21:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


July 10

08:33, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Proofficial

HELP It's a posting about the company in other languages. It's in English, it's not. We need people to know the truth about the company. This is a free article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FxPro_Group Proofficial (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Proofficial.
I'm afraid your question does not make much sense? Do you have a specific question about the draft article? Qcne (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft is just blatant advertising with undisclosed paid editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. We'll completely rewrite the article so it doesn't look like an advertisement. Proofficial (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Proofficial. Your use of the term "we" suggests you may be breaking the Wikipedia Terms of Service.
Please immediately comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Shared accounts, or you may be blocked from editing. Qcne (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:36, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Nansyy

Please help review this article. It has been pending for over a months now. Thank you very much Nansyy (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nansyy As noted on your draft, "This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,149 pending submissions waiting for review.". Why should you be given priority over the thousands of others waiting for their drafts to be reviewed? Please continue to be patient. This is a volunteer effort with a limited number of volunteers. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:32, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Insizlane

I don't agree with the reviewer's assessment that my heavy use of primary sources is problematic, nor that primarily local secondary sources are insufficient. The person who the article is about is indeed a local figure, but a significant one nonetheless. A major college has named a scholarship after him, for example. I fail to see how this article does not meet notability guidelines, and am unsure how to proceed. Insizlane (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insizlane The main purpose of a Wikipedia article is to summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, not what primary sources say about it. Primary sources do not contribute to establishing notability. Very local sources are more difficult for that purpose as well, as they may not reflect widespread knowledge. If you have no further sources, this person likely does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time.
If you truly feel that we are all in error despite the greater experience others have, this process is voluntary(unless you have a conflict of interest or are editing via a new account or IP). You can roll the dice and place it in the encyclopedia yourself, though it would be at risk of a deletion discussion. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I've added some more secondary sources and resubmitted. I'd just like to note that the attitude and condescension is not necessary. You may have "greater experience" at Wikipedia editing but I am an archivist and librarian with two Master's degrees and over ten years of experience in my field so please don't denigrate what I and my library's collections bring to the table here. It was my impression that Wikipedia actively wants to bring in more sources from libraries and local history institutions to broaden and diversify the encyclopedia. I don't see how you will do that without accepting primary sources and "local" sources as reliable ones. As for this process being voluntary, I only recently passed the threshold where I don't have to submit for review and was trying to respect the process. In future I'll go ahead and publish articles that I deem Wikipedia-worthy and we can see how it goes. Insizlane (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, my intention was not to be condescending, but to clearly state things. I was not aware of your background, but Wikipedia writing is different from academic or scholarly writing. Again, sorry. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Jopencjusz

Hello,

I've submited this page and got it declined with comment: "Written like a guide for the game".

I honestly don't understand why it was revied as guide for the game. I created it with intention to inform as best as I could potential person, who never played this game, what's in it and how it works, so someone who never encountered this type of game, could find out if this is something that will be interesting for him or not.

It's my first attempt to create anything here and right now I'm lost what should I do, to improve this draft. Should I be more vague in explaining all this? There're lot of pages about the games that have very wide section about gameplay explaining how game works and what can be done in it.

Please I need help with that to improve it and meet all criteria. Thank you in advance! Jopencjusz (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jopencjusz,
You say: "I created it with intention to inform as best as I could potential person, who never played this game, what's in it and how it works, so someone who never encountered this type of game, could find out if this is something that will be interesting for him or not.".
Unfortunately that's not what a Wikipedia article is for! A Wikipedia article only summarises what third party, independent, reliable sources state about a topic. Your current draft would be more suited for a website like GameFAQs or a fandom wikia.
We have millions of articles, and a lot of them aren't very good, so if you are going to write an article please use a Wikipedia:Good articles as a template.
You should also have a read of Help:Your first article which gives some good tips about writing an article for the first time.
If you want to try again with this draft, I would recommend starting from scratch. You need to find reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover Basket Pulse in detail, and then summarise them in your own words. That should make up the content of your article draft.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:46, 10 July 2023 review of submission by Uzungol1

Hello, Just wanted to know why this hasn't been accepted yet? Feels like its been delayed Uzungol1 (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Uzungol1 the draft was declined back in June. See the message on your talk page and on the draft. S0091 (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Uzungol1 I fixed your link for proper display(you needed the "Draft:" in it). Your draft was declined on June 26th. You will need to address the concerns of the reviewer and resubmit it for it to be considered again. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have resubmitted following the feedback provided after it was declined Uzungol1 (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:53, 10 July 2023 review of submission by BigGaloot62

The article is laden with links, mainly within Wikipedia, so I am 'slightly bemused' by response! Of course it is entirely possible I am missing something pretty obvious to others that (unfortunately) isn't to me! Any guidance appreciated. Thanks BigGaloot62 (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article should summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Your draft has no sources. Please read Your First Article as well as WP:BACKWARD. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
e/c You have zero reliable independent sources. Wikipedia articles cannot reference each other, it is fine to link to them but they confer no notability. Theroadislong (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:51, 10 July 2023 review of submission by GingerAnimationz

Hello, the reason why i'm here, is because my draft page about a YouTuber, named Courtney Miller, is declined by someone, by the name of "Theroadislong". Not to be evil, but can someone submit my Draft article, love to hear it. Bless you all from Serbia. GingerAnimationz (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct link Draft:Courtney Miller (YouTuber) draft has zero reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can i now submit the draft, because i have added an independent source?o GingerAnimationz (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GingerAnimationz, the three base requirements for sources are that they are reliable, independent, and significant coverage. Reliable means reputable. Independent means they are not paid or prompted, and interviews are non-independent. Significant coverage means the source has more than one mention, or a sentence, or two sentences on the topic.
In this case, the independent and reliable source has only one mention of Courtney Miller. Thus, it does not count toward notability. I suspect the draft will be declined if you submit it again. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption1
    Caption1
  • Caption2
    Caption2

July 11

00:36, 11 July 2023 review of submission by 92.11.81.211

There are multiple references to the BBC TV and Radio writer Rob Kinsman on Wikipedia including for his episodes of Father Brown Mysteries and Doctors. He also created and wrote the 2023 Channel 5 series Blindspot, broadcast on Channel 5 in the UK in July 2023 starring Ross Kemp, and has written for BBC Radio.

I don’t have the technical know-how to add sources which are already available on Wikipedia, it would be helpful if a more senior editor could tie some of these in to the draft article so that it may be published. 

92.11.81.211 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your link for proper display (you were missing the "Draft:"). 331dot (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Referencing for beginners to learn more about creating references. It's also not enough to merely document his work, you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this man, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

00:56, 11 July 2023 review of submission by 223.123.15.79

The Page Ducky Bhai is about a Pakistani Youtuber who’s getting me paid for writing this article. Please give me assistance 223.123.15.79 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft has been rejected. Do not try to resubmit it again. Instead use other outlets, such as social media, to promote Ducky Bhai. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has been rejected and will not be reconsidered. Please read WP:PAID, a mandatory policy. We expect declared paid editors to be competent. Your only reference is to IMDb, which is primarily user generated content and therefore not a reliable source. See WP:IMDB for the consensus on its general unreliability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

04:10, 11 July 2023 review of submission by ShibuEalayil

I have submitted an article, but it got rejected , please hep me with assistence ShibuEalayil (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! As this is most likely an autobiography, if you think you are notable someone else will eventually create an article for you. However the use of bare links and no sources are the main reason for decline. Please add more reliable sources to help verify all information. Karnataka (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:48, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Mustachian Post

Hey there,

This is my very first time on article creation on Wikipedia. I purposefully waited 10y since my blog exists. And I took all the necessary precautions to not make it sound commercial in any way.

May you let me know what I could do better (which line exactly) to get it accepted? Mustachian Post (talk) 05:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is meant to promote the blog, and therefore has been rejected - please do not resubmit this. The use of weasel words such as "thought provoking", "dedicated" etc. do not help with this article being published. The references are just features of the blog, whereas large parts of it remain unsourced. If your blog is notable, someone else will make an article for it eventually. Karnataka (talk) 06:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:47, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Vproductions123

As per our knowledge we have edited and published this article. we request you to please feed us the knowledge where we need to correct and what we need to do. Vproductions123 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! How many people use this account, based on the word "we"? Vproductions123 Karnataka (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have provided sources, but it is not clear what the sources are citing. The sources must be in-line with the text, next to the information they are supporting. See referencing for beginners for more information.
If you are associated with this actor, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:20, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Xardwen

Hi,

I have a somewhat complex situation regarding an article I'm trying to get approved for creation; the article in question is on post-finasteride syndrome (PFS), which was the subject of a dispute in 2021 over whether there were enough credible medical sources to warrant an article on the subject. As a result of this dispute, the PFS article was changed into a redirect for Finasteride, and was locked from editing by user:Acroterion.

I recently drafted an article which I hope addresses the concerns raised in the 2021 dispute, and submitted it for review; however, it was declined with a note that I should seek consensus on the Talk page for Finasteride as to whether a separate article should be created for PFS. I left a post on the Talk page, and have also reached out to user:Acroterion to solicit their opinion. As of yet, I have received no responses after about a week.

In the event that no one feels compelled to comment and help reach a consensus, how should I go about navigating this situation?

Thanks, Xardwen (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If no one comments, resubmit the draft and note on the talk page that you asked for comment but no one replied. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:02, 11 July 2023 review of submission by 176.229.216.92

Hi, I could not understand the reason for declining my draft. May someone explain me which part of the draft was not cited/not cited correctly? I could not understand it from the attached links.. Thank you! 176.229.216.92 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor,
There are large sections of your draft that are entirely uncited (the entirety of Research and teaching section and most of Biography, for example). You also need to fix the references as they are appearing under External links, which is the wrong place for them.
Check out a good article from Wikipedia:Good articles to see how you should be citing properly. Qcne (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanl you for your quick reply!
I did find some sources that confirm roles Paldor currently occupying. But what should I do with degrees or places he graduated? I dont have his diplomas.. Are diplomas are good to confirm this facta? Or this is not what you ment? Because I have never seen diplomas on Wikipedia.. BnayaMeir (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find sources for biographical facts, then I am afraid you can't include them. Have a read of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which is a comprehensive explanation of how to source information for living people. Qcne (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomas are not published sources and have no place on Wikipedia, BnayaMeir. If reliable sources do not discuss the schools he was educated in, and his degrees, then this information does not belong on Wikipedia. Just leave it out, along with any other unreferenced content. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, BnayaMeir, remove all puffery like most internationally acclaimed and unprecedented international recognition. Wikipedia articles are written from the neutral point of view. We neither praise good people nor denounce bad people in Wikipedia's voice. Any evaluative language needs to be cited to and attributed to reliable, independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Art Therapy Resources

Hi, I have submitted a page with the title Queer topics in Art Therapy. Reading list. There is a feminist reading list on Wikipedia already, so this page is following that established precedent.

Somehow it got declined, so please guide me on how I can move on with this further.


Thank you Art Therapy Resources (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Art Therapy Resources.
Unfortunately, the existence of an existing Wikipedia article should not be used as a guide to make a new article (unless it has Wikipedia:Good articles status). Could you link the feminist reading list you've found, as I cannot find an existing article with that name?
The reviewer declined your article as it contravenes the WP:NOTDATABASE policy. If you want to try again with this article, start from scratch and instead summarise what independent, third party, reliable sources state about queer art therapy.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Theroadislong (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 11 July 2023 review of submission by FromAbilityToNeed

The speedy deletion for this article was reverted, because it is not unambiguously promotional. The current draft is based on independent secondary sources and describes the practice of an internationally recognized (i.e., notable) collective of Dutch (multidisciplinary) artists. The page has partially been translated from the existing Dutch wikipedia page (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAAAF), but in my own words and on the basis of relevant English-language sources. What would need to change in order to publish it on wikipedia? FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FromAbilityToNeed. Sentences like Through multidisciplinary research with scientists, visual artists, experimental architects, and craftsmen, RAAAF creates artworks that invite reflection on practices and policies connected with the contemporary environments in which we work and live. are unambiguously promotional. The tone of that sentence is utterly inappropriate for a neutrally written encyclopedia, and is far more appropriate for RAAAF's own website. To be frank, the mere presence of an article on the Dutch Wikipedia is of no relevance on the English Wikipedia. They have their own policies and guidelines, and we have ours. They have poor quality articles and we have poor quality articles, and Wikipedias in any language do not need more poor quality articles. We need less of them. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cullen328, thank you for your reply. I see what you mean about the tone of that sentence. I am afraid I might have been a little bit too enthusiastic. That being said, it still seems to me, however, an established fact that the artists at RAAAF have been cooperating with scientists, architects and all kinds of academic professionals. I have found a lot of academic literature that establishes this, but for this wikipedia article I decided to include only some notable secondary sources that were not academic. For example, in the Wired article I used as a source (see: https://www.wired.com/2014/12/weirdest-proposal-yet-office-future/), it says that "RAAAF has invited rotating groups of workers---philosophers, writers, psychology students, designers, and artists, to name a few examples---to post up in the "The End of Sitting" and offer feedback. Researchers from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands are documenting the results and will be publishing the findings next spring". Would you not say that the references I supplied at least establish sufficient notability? If so, should the article not be rewritten using a better, more neutral, tone/style, instead of being rejected? I am rather new to wikipedia, but I very much intend for the article to comply with the wikipedia guidelines. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wired article is based on an interview, and so is not independent; I'm also not sure that it amounts to significant coverage of RAAAF. In order to contribute to establishing notability a source must be all three of reliable, independent and containing significant coverage of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ColinFine, thank you for your reply. I thought I had taken care to pick sources that are reliable and independent according to wikipedia's standards. From reading the criteria, though, I do not quite see how interviews are necessarily excluded by the independence criterion? Surely Wired has no stake in whether or not RAAAF comes across well? I would very much appreciate it if I could be given further understanding about what I might be missing here.
Furthermore, I do understand that sources need to be reliable, independent and contain significant coverage. I am not sure however, how to approach significant coverage, in the case of the artists I am describing. I see them being covered not just by national newspapers (which I thought not to include due to paywalls and non-english language), and internationally by media (that I did reference in the article) like Wired, The New York Times Style Magazine (see: https://archive.nytimes.com/tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/the-architecture-biennale-a-last-look/), and ArchDaily (see: https://www.archdaily.com/69189/vacant-nl-an-exhibition-during-the-venice-biennale). Thanks again for your reply and thank you in advance for taking the time to respond. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are by definition the person speaking about themselves, that is not independent even if the outlet publishing the interview is. Interviews can be used for other purposes, but not for establishing notability. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 331dot! I understand that the parts where people talk about themselves (the information that they provide there) are not independent. But cannot the decision by the outlet to do an interview in itself already be a sign of notability? In this case, the RAAAF artists are interviewed about an artwork that they created, does this not establish that they were notable (independently of whatever they might say about themselves)? FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that an outlet conducted and published an interview does not establish notability. I'm not saying it is in this case, but interviews are sometimes paid promotional pieces. If something drew their attention to the subject of the interview, we need to know what that was and the mere fact that an interview occurred does not do that. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand. And an outlet that would publish a paid promotional piece would not be reliable, correct? I do not have a reason to think that this specific article was a paid promotion. The reason they did the interview, in all likelyhood, was because the artwork was inviting attention to health risks connected to sitting. The Wired article introduces what I think drew their attention to this artwork: "A couple years ago, after research about the health risks of prolonged sitting came to light, a wave of standing desks hit the market. Big companies like Ikea and Steelcase have rolled out standing desk designs; others are even attached to treadmills or recumbent bikes. While these certainly get workers up and off their derrieres, once an employee selects one of these models (and presumably goes through the company’s facilities manager to get it installed) she’s married to that particular product and posture." FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that "signs of notability" doesn't make sense in the context of Wikipedia. The criteria of notability are not about whether the subject is important, influential, famous, or popular, but about whether there is sufficient published material to ground an article. And while a limited amount of information from non-independent sources may eventually be included in an article, that "sufficient published material to ground an article" cannot include any information which comes from the subject or their associates. ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my wording was confusing there, I meant "test of notability" as it is described in the reliability criterion (in the general notability guideline). Just to check if I am still at the same page: what I am trying to find out is whether or not all of my three listed references fail to meet all three of the criteria of being reliable, independent and containing significant coverage. FromAbilityToNeed (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:40, 11 July 2023 review of submission by NobleYeats

Hello! I am trying to get a page published for BVGroup. My draft has been rejected, but don't understand why the references are not acceptable. The industry news sites are reliable and reputable. Many of the references are the same as used in the BetVictor Wikipedia page which is already published. (BetVictor is now just one of the brands managed by BVGroup). Please could someone tell me which references are not acceptable in my draft, so that I can change them or delete them? I just want to get something published with the basic neutral facts about BVGroup. Many thanks NobleYeats (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft was declined, not rejected. Rejected has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means it may be resubmitted.
Your draft summarizes the routine business activities of the company. That's not what is being looked for. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, staff interviews, announcements of routine business activities, and brief mentions do not establish notability. We are looking for sources that go beyond that coverage and discuss what they see as important/significant/influential about the company as they see it, not as the company sees itself. 331dot (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NobleYeats, your draft is not so much about BVGroup as it is about BVGroup branding. The word "brand" appears at least eleven times in your short draft. Branding is fundamentally a marketing and promotional activity, and such behavior is forbidden on Wikipedia. When I read your draft, I learn very little about the specific services the company offers, other than corporate-speak jargon like provider of full-service, end-to-end technology solutions. There is no actual encyclopedic content in those words, but rather vacuous corporate preening that belongs on the company's website, not in a neutrally written encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 11 July 2023 review of submission by Deligma

I got declined 2 times and I'm trying to write the wiki page,i did write in my bio and following the rules I'm the main developer of the game,so i don't know what other sources i should link to Deligma (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Deligma.
I'm afraid your game is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Please read Wikipedia:Notability which explains what we mean by "notability".
You would need several references from independent, third party sources that are unconnected with your game. This means not from your game's Steam page, not from a press release, not from an interview, etc. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for an explanation of the sort of references an article would need.
As the creator of the game, you should also not be creating articles directly due to your Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If your game becomes notable enough to pass the Wikipedia notability threshold then one of the Wikipedia volunteers will likely create an article about it.
Finally, on a small note, I notice that you had some odd usage of commas in your draft article - we require a space after every comma. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

08:08, 12 July 2023 review of submission by SriRamaswamy1984


I am a big fan of Mr. Balram Iyer, thought to do it to surprise him. Since I am very new to Wikipedia, I am unaware of reliable sources. It would be helpful to determine what steps I need to take to open this page. I briefed a few points about Mr. Balram because I don't know how the Wikipedia page works. So thought to submit a draft first then once it is approved I can fill in the remaining points like DOB, Current City living, Film songs, etc. Kindly help me with this so that I will be happy to write about him and that will be a happy moment for a fan. Thanks SriRamaswamy1984 (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:50, 12 July 2023 review of submission by Keshav Madhvani8

I added the reliable sources of Dainik bhaskar news paper as an article published . Please do check it. Keshav Madhvani8 (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to resubmit it in order for it to be reviewed again. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:23, 12 July 2023 review of submission by Reddy Chandana Reddy

Without knowing the article got blocked - can you please release the same. we are in the process of adding and updating the info Reddy Chandana Reddy (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 12 July 2023 review of submission by 77.222.27.90

After a long time this article was changed with instructions from Wikipedia. If you can see it again will be thankful. 77.222.27.90 (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are reviewed at a random order, as stated that reviews take 3+ months. Please be patient, as asking here will not speed up the review process. Karnataka (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your article was also rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. Karnataka (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:38, 12 July 2023 review of submission by Konnect.369

You have requested I source the date of birth. Is it possible to provide the original ID? this is how I got their date of birth. Konnect.369 (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Konnect.369 Not just the date of birth needs to be cited, but every statement in the article. Sourcing is currently insufficient. Karnataka (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:02, 12 July 2023 review of submission by Wella2023

Please let me know what is wrong with my article? Wella2023 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wella2023: You have already been told on your talk page what was wrong with the draft, but I will tell you again. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and the page you created was an advertisement. JBW (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


July 13

02:36, 13 July 2023 review of submission by Vanessa1014

When my submission is declined due to the reference issue, can I continuing revise the references for further review? Thanks. Vanessa1014 (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@vanessa1014: please do. lettherebedarklight晚安 09:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:18, 13 July 2023 review of submission by Yankinthebank

I really dislike the rewriting because it is so complex. I’ve written to TahoeBlue but have heard nothing. I intend to rewrite it if I hear nothing. I would like your advice on the comments from Willi Brammertz. He’s right, I have made quite a leap in ‘The idea of such…’ paragraph. I hadn’t intended to delve into Szabo, but that’s where Brammertz comes from, so it seems to be a good way into the foundations of ACTUS to expand the page. The Miami paper he refers to is no longer online, but I’d prefer a better published source anyway. In summary: 1) is it OK to talk with him? 2) I’ve no reason to doubt it’s him, but do we just go on trust? 3) His suggestions are solid, but I’m a bit wary of him running the page through me! I suppose that can only come down to judgment. Finally, how do I add (ACTUS) in the title of the page? Thank you for your time and encouragement. 

Yankinthebank (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 13 July 2023 review of submission by Sandip0982

Recently i wrote an article/biography of the living person but was declined by AFC. Please do let me know the issues and mistake so i can avoid in further one. Sandip0982 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


why my article was declined? Sandip0982 (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandip0982 It wasn't just declined, it was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. As said by the reviewer, "The topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". It is also completely unsourced. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:39, 13 July 2023 review of submission by Haroon Waheed 1

wanted to submit this company article so is their anyone who can help me with this Haroon Waheed 1 (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have submitted four times and it has been declined each time, the topic does not appear to pass WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so should I change the title? Haroon Waheed 1 (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not understand about the reviewer's decline comments? Address those first. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:03, 13 July 2023 review of submission by 79.173.128.122

Hello, I was just wondering if the changes I have now made will make this possible to be published? 79.173.128.122 (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have not resubmitted the draft, so it is unlikely that a reviewer will look at it. Please submit it, and then be patient. ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:56, 13 July 2023 review of submission by Raisul Islam Ador

Please review my sandbox and approve my page Raisul Islam Ador (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Raisul Islam Ador.
Your sandbox article has been Rejected and will therefore never become an article; there is nothing you can do. You do not seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a place for any type of self-promotion or advertisement. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: not an advertising platform, directory, or a way to promote a subject. It is not a social media site like Facebook, LinkedIn, or Twitter.
All articles about living people must pass the strict Wikipedia:Notability (people) threshold: you are unfortunately not notable by Wikipedia standards. We also highly discourage you from writing an article about yourself due to the clear conflict of interest.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:04, 13 July 2023 review of submission by 89.216.130.27

I need more advice? 89.216.130.27 (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been Rejected' and will not be further considered. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability ColinFine (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

09:28, 14 July 2023 review of submission by Yusufyilmazyz5

I'm not clear on why my draft was declined. please be more descriptive Yusufyilmazyz5 (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yusufyilmazyz5 Please read the message left by the reviewer and the pages linked in their message carefully. In short, your draft is completely unsourced; all articles must summarize what independent reliable sources say about the topic, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of(in this case) a notable musician. Please note that the best way to write an article is to first gather the sources and then summarize them- not to write a text and then look for the sources to support it, see WP:BACKWARD. All statements about living people must be sourced, per the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
The promotional language needs to be removed- stuff like his "journey". If there is no information about his personal life, then nothing needs to be said about it at all- everyone's background generally serves to inspire them. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:42, 14 July 2023 review of submission by Rohitkumar8055

Hi

Can you pls assist me with required changes that need to be done on this article to get it publish successfully.

Thanks Rohitkumar8055 (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been rejected, there is nothing you can do. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rohitkumar8055, your draft is riddled with overtly promotional content in violation of the Neutral point of view, which is a core content policy. Examples include Supernowa has a robust system that is available at all times to ensure that players have a safe and realistic gaming experience and In 2023 Exchmarket brought out the big news of their collaboration with Supernowa to take the online casino experience to the next level. They believe that this collaboration can bring out the best in the punters and Exchmarket is known for its collaboration with various celebrities from different fields. This has gained a vast amount of attention on the site last year.. It is incomprehensible to me why you would think that such overtly promotional garbage would belong in a neutrally written encyclopedia, but that's where we are, aren't we? Cullen328 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:17, 14 July 2023 review of submission by Papisean

I created an article for a compny, it has several reference links you can check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LVP_Group. But it was rejected.

i also created another article for a business personality, with up to 10 external reference links, yet it was rejected too

How many reference sources will an article have for it to be approved for publishing? Papisean (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your references are primary so contribute nothing to establishing any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:27, 14 July 2023 review of submission by Rohanacharekar1999

need help as the artical was rejected due to follwing reasions :- This 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Rohanacharekar1999 (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohanacharekar1999 Please specify the help you are looking for. I can say that promotional/marketing language like "Prashant Shinde embarked on his acting journey" and "Throughout his six-year journey in the performing arts" needs to be removed/reworded. You say things like "Prashant Shinde has gained recognition for his exceptional versatility" but don't describe who says that about him. Please also read referencing for beginners to learn how to properly format references and place them in-line next to the text being cited. All information about a living person must be sourced, see the biographies of living persons policy. You will also need to demonstrate how he meets the definition of a notable actor or more broadly a notable person. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

12:55, 14 July 2023 review of submission by 106.66.27.127

Tell me why this submission was declined and also tell me whether some information was wrong in this post, after all everything is true in it, yet why did you decline it? 106.66.27.127 (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources mentioned in the draft. WikiNews is not reliable. It was rejected, meaning it is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:50, 14 July 2023 review of submission by Fortheloveofart45

Hello, I'm requesting assistance on how to get this article edited to include more sources and tips on how to improve the post in general since this is my first submission. Any guidance you can provide will be appreciated! Thanks in advance! Fortheloveofart45 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fortheloveofart45 might be notable but it may take a trip the the library along with determining if he (person) is notable versus the galleries, meaning if most of the in-depth coverage is about one of his galleries then the article's topic should be about that gallery rather than about him. S0091 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:54, 14 July 2023 review of submission by Voorts

I nominated this page for AfC, but I just saw the backlog is several months long and I'd like to just go ahead and publish it myself. How do I remove this from the submissions queue? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


July 15

00:51, 15 July 2023 review of submission by Chingchingpulse

I've added multiple sources but the draft keeps getting flagged, requesting more specific help Chingchingpulse (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have two sources which barely mention Mr. Heart and just discuss his activities. For Mr. Heart to merit an article, you must summarize independent reliable sources with significant coverage of Mr. Heart, showing how he meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. "Significant coverage" goes beyond merely documenting what he does, and goes into detail about what makes the person important/significant/influential. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:19, 15 July 2023 review of submission by JimyRobinson786

why my article submission was declined? JimyRobinson786 (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JimyRobinson786 The draft in your sandbox was deleted as unambiguous promotion. It was declined as not showing notability. There is, however, already an article on FIFA 23(which you provided a link to in this message). 331dot (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:43, 15 July 2023 review of submission by Davy2002

Abele Life is notable in Nigeria as a music artist trying to get a page for him is becoming unbearable… we have faced so many rejections and need approval of the page Davy2002 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have any "pages" about anybody, it has articles about notable people, you draft was rejected because it fails the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Theroadislong (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Davy2002, who is "we" and why do you "need" approval of the article? Are you being paid by Abele to promote him on Wikipedia? Please understand Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a social media website.
If you are being paid, please comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure or you may be blocked from editing. Qcne (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please I need assistance in approving my draft page … I mean Abele Life is a figure in Nigeria and all links for proof are available help in approving this please Davy2002 (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davy2002 You need to answer the questions posted here(they are also posted on your user talk page, but you need only respond in one location). Please do not create a new section of this page for each comment you make, please edit this existing section. 331dot (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 15 July 2023 review of submission by Auk lak

I was editing this draft, and type only biography things with proofs from news article URL, so I hope you can help me and explain how can I apply again for publish article, becouse I dont have anymore this button. Auk lak (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. English does not seem to be your first language; you may feel better editing the Wikipedia of your primary language. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:34, 15 July 2023 review of submission by Auk lak

I was editing things that supporters told me to change, so if I need to change something more need help and advice Auk lak (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Auk lak.
Your draft article was rejected, which means that it will not be considered further. Sorry, Qcne (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

00:59, 16 July 2023 review of submission by KevinML

What are reliable sources for music related articles? Additionally, is SongFacts a reliable source? KevinML (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @KevinML.
Have a read of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources which details some reliable music sources.SongFacts looks to be Wikipedia:User-generated content so probably is not reliable.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:38, 16 July 2023 review of submission by 2601:40D:8401:4A30:9172:76CB:F337:3D70

Social justice is a very important topic and a sixteen year old in the legal realm is notable! 2601:40D:8401:4A30:9172:76CB:F337:3D70 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. You might not understand what Wikipedia means by "notable". Please have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (people) which sets out the criteria for living people to pass the Wikipedia notability threshold. In essence: you needed to show significant coverage in third-party reliable secondary sources that were independent of Cayden.
In any case, your article draft has been rejected and therefore won't be considered further.
Hope that helps, Qcne (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:27, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Brek1234567

What's wrong with my article? Brek1234567 (talk) 05:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Brek1234567.
The topic of your draft article already exists at Insurgency in Southeastern Nigeria. Feel free to improve that article with reliable sources. Qcne (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 16 July 2023 review of submission by CRCICA

we are new here, could you please help us understand why this page is rejected

User:CRCICA/sandbox CRCICA (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is an encyclopaedia NOT a venue for promoting your organisation. Theroadislong (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OP blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:09, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Itayalush

My article was declined because of a lack of inline citations, but I have cited sources on it, and i've read the guide on inline citations and don't understand the difference between what I did and what I am expected to do. I could really use some help...

Thanks 

Itayalush (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sections such as Personal Life and Elazari's birth date lack inline citations. In addition, there are stray sentences that does not seem to be supported by any inline citations. Greenman may be referring to those sections. Ca talk to me! 12:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:35, 16 July 2023 review of submission by IndiaWriter2

I want to publish this article in wikipedia. But I cannot do that, always there is a problem to publish the article. The article always been rejected. Please guide me. Thank You IndiaWriter2 (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejected" means that the draft will not be considered again. No amount of editing can confer notability on a topic. Your draft is completely unsourced. Wikipedia is not a place for just telling about something. Please read Your First Article as well as the notability criteria for people. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

13:47, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Nepali Prerit

why is my article being rejected time and again? 

Nepali Prerit (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nepali Prerit: the draft is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability, and also written in a non-neutral manner. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a promotional or soapboxing platform. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 16 July 2023 review of submission by 107.77.198.34

Is there any ref of the development of PWND that I would know of? Cause so far, I found one around Vanossgaming and he did played the game before it got shut down. 107.77.198.34 (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking, but just to say that this draft has been rejected and will not be considered again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a ref about an exclusive skin for Vanoss in the game and I’m trying to find some sites and sources about the development of Skydance’s game PWND. 107.77.198.34 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound, based on that description, like something that would have much of an impact on notability, and in any case one source isn't enough. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I’m trying to find more sources but there’s not enough I can find. I was hopping to get some advice from this since it told me to. 107.77.198.34 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, now I get your original question – you're asking if we have any sources for this draft? No, we don't, and that's not really how it works; the onus is on the article author(s) to come up with the necessary sources. That said, I suppose you can always ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I’ll ask them for help. 64.56.17.172 (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:38, 16 July 2023 review of submission by Black Dragon024

i am assuming the draft was declined because the person is not famous enough for a wiki so there would be no point in continuing to editing and expanding the draft right? Black Dragon024 (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Dragon024: it was declined because there is no evidence that the person in question is notable, as the sources are pretty much useless. This is kind of similar to your "not famous enough", although 'fame' isn't really something we deal in here at Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1165671264"