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
Requesting assistance regarding Draft: world war 2 in the balkans
Line 467: Line 467:
:::::::We are happy to answer your good faith questions. Yes, the lack of proper sources is why the draft has been declined. User-generated websites and social media are not acceptable sources, and you don't have acceptable sources that establish that this is [[WP:N|notable]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::We are happy to answer your good faith questions. Yes, the lack of proper sources is why the draft has been declined. User-generated websites and social media are not acceptable sources, and you don't have acceptable sources that establish that this is [[WP:N|notable]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Writing a new article is the most diffcult task to attempt on Wikipedia, if you haven't already, I would suggest reading [[WP:YFA|Your First Article]] and using the [[WP:ADVENTURE|new user tutorial]] to learn more about Wikipedia. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Writing a new article is the most diffcult task to attempt on Wikipedia, if you haven't already, I would suggest reading [[WP:YFA|Your First Article]] and using the [[WP:ADVENTURE|new user tutorial]] to learn more about Wikipedia. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

== 11:34, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Spongy mysophyll productions ==
{{Lafc|username=Spongy mysophyll productions|ts=11:34, 25 February 2024|draft=Draft: world war 2 in the balkans}}
How to edit and save a draft without publishing [[User:Spongy mysophyll productions|Spongy mysophyll productions]] ([[User talk:Spongy mysophyll productions|talk]]) 11:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:34, 25 February 2024

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
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


February 19

05:35, 19 February 2024 review of submission by Poketape

This article is being held to a higher standard than other tennis tournaments, such as Almaty Open and Zhuhai Championships. It is simply the nature of tennis tournaments that all required information comes directly from the ATP/WTA Tours or the tournament host. poketape (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Poketape. Wikipedia has, unfortunately, many tens of thousands of poor quality poorly sourced articles. We certainly don't want to add more to that pile. Looking at the draft now compared to when it was declined, I think it's now passed the threshold of notability so I will accept it for you. Qcne (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 19 February 2024 review of submission by Ravikantshinde

I Understand that the article had large number of references but honestly this was for the notability proof of the work. This article needs to be accepted. Please guide me so that I can make it possible with all respect. Ravikantshinde (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was deleted as "unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person". It clearly DOESN'T need to be accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your relationship with Dr. Shinde? Are you a relative? 331dot (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:15, 19 February 2024 review of submission by 47.221.1.83

How can I include references from printed articles that are not online (from before 1994)? 47.221.1.83 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this for advice: WP:OFFLINE. It's important to include enough details in the citation so that the source can be reliably identified. It would also be very helpful if you could somehow indicate what the source says, eg. by including a quotation. HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:49, 19 February 2024 review of submission by MTlegends

I continue to submit my article for review and it continues to send blank. Help me understand exactly what I am doing wrong. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 17:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MTlegends: that's because your sandbox is blank.
It seems you've added draft content to your talk page User_talk:MTlegends, though, and also submitted that. I will move that to a new draft page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One source of confusion may be that you need to click "Publish changes" to save your edits. This button used to say "save", but was changed to emphasize that all edits are public. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks for the clarification. I am not a educated enough to understand how this systems work. I appreciation the guidance. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MTlegends: okay, I've moved the content to a new draft, at Draft:Walter Wetzel Sr., and removed it from your talk page. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it. I will review and see if I can find more information to add in the article. Ryan H Wetzel MTlegends(talk). 23:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:29:02, 19 February 2024 review of submission by PenmanWarrior Draft:Michele Evans

This was declined erroneously.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/04/opinion/rikers-jail-covid.html https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/

There are many other articles about Ms. Evans PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not addressed the concerns at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PenmanWarrior. Why are you so hell-bent on getting this draft created (I presume you are the IP editor from the Articles for Deletion discussion)? Do you have a connection to Michele?
I've had a glance at the draft as an uninvolved reviewer and I do not see the notability. I see a lot of fluff about her self-published books, professional and, personal life: but frankly most (all?) of it could be deleted. You have also refbombed the defamation lawsuit paragraph, and I do not think it warrants inclusion in the article at all.
Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable.
Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable.
I think we might be able to get to the notability threshold by focusing on her Riker's Island incarceration? But I am not sure if it would warrant it's own article. Surely her advocacy about the conditions on Riker's island has been reported in the local or national press? The two sources and the op-ed for this are primary sources so useless for establishing notability.
My best advice going forward is to start from scratch, focus entirely on the Riker's Island stuff, and choose three (and only three) sources which are all independent of Michele, from reliable places, and show significant coverage of her.
The draft was not declined erroneously and I agree with @Muboshgu's declination as an uninvolved reviewer.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At what point do you stop downplaying someone's accomplishments? 6 Novels and a Children's book? You can argue self-published all you want but you can't argue it's feature in The New York Times! This is the holy grail of authors. Time to stop ignoring facts. PenmanWarrior (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are defensive and I don't appreciate the tone. Please answer the question: what connection do you have to Michele.
I am not downplaying her accomplishments. There are literally millions of authors, only a fraction are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Her NYT op-ed is great, but we need significant coverage in multiple sources that are independent of her. Qcne (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provided two NEW SOURCES which most definitely address concerns at the article for deletion.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html
2. https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing your sources:
  1. NYT: This is an okay source. It is an interview with Michele but contains enough commentary to put it over the edge.
  2. Rocky Mountain News: This is an interview and a fluff piece and confers no notability.
Qcne (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. More than an ok source. A book featured in the New York Times is the holy grail for authors. This is a known fact.
3. Define notability. Who gets to decide it's a fluff piece? It's concerning Evans' work. Show me where describing someone's work is fluff. Especially since the deletion article's only complaint was there were no sources. There are now sources, independent of Evans, which is what was demanded. Please re-read the deletion discussion. PenmanWarrior (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I give up on responding to you. I gave you constructive criticism. I have 2000+ article reviews under my belt and know what I am talking about. I also trust the consensus from the deletion discussion. This person is not notable and I hope you will be topic banned as per the ANI discussion. Qcne (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You can be blaze about somethings Rose, but not the Titanic!" - Caledon Hockley PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By consensus, she was not notable as of 17 January 2024, so 2008 and 2021 refs cannot help overcome that. PenmanWarrior, it seems counter-productive to take a beligerent tone and argue so strongly against those who are explaining our policies and guidelines and even giving you guidance on a route to accomplish what you want. DMacks (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic makes no sense. The argument in the deletion discussion was that no one could find sources that were independent. They have now been found and included. PenmanWarrior (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 20

00:16, 20 February 2024 review of submission by ProdBy.Skittlez

why im crying right now can you help me get this wiki Skittlez (Rapper) published pleased i need to get this wiki published i love yalll and enjoy ProdBy.Skittlez (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:COI and WP:PAID; but your draft has been rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:00, 20 February 2024 review of submission by Sandile Rekhotso

i need help with notable topics#Sandile Rekhotso (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandile Rekhotso: see WP:N. While you're at it, see also WP:AUTOBIO and WP:PROMO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:07, 20 February 2024 review of submission by Obyno2020

This person is notable, please I need help in creating this page Obyno2020 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Obyno2020: notability has not been demonstrated, therefore this draft was rejected. It's not enough to say a subject is notable, we need to see evidence, and the onus for that is on the draft author. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What if I provide links to secondary sources? Obyno2020 (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Obyno2020: I can't speculate about some hypothetical sources that you might possibly provide. If they are sufficient to establish notability, then you may be onto something, but that's far from given. And in any case, you should make your appeal directly to the reviewer who rejected this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:07, 20 February 2024 review of submission by EnCyClOpEdIA VII

Why are all my drafts getting rejected? EnCyClOpEdIA VII (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EnCyClOpEdIA VII: I've reviewed two of them, both were entirely unreferenced, and the eggplant one was also unsuitable for a standalone article (we cannot have separate articles on eggplant, canned eggplant, dried eggplant, etc.). It's great that you're enthusiastic about editing, but you need to go about it the right way. See WP:YFA for advice on article creation, and WP:REFB on referencing. Also, read WP:N on the concept of notability, as it applies in the Wikipedia context. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:50, 20 February 2024 review of submission by 184.149.27.16

Hi there, I'm trying to create a wikipedia page about The Toronto Heschel School. After submitting my article, it was declined stating, "This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article." It claims my references aren't in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements), reliable, secondary, or strictly independent. I included many references that do follow each requirement but it was still declined. Not sure if I am misunderstand something. 184.149.27.16 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined as blatant advertising, the content is totally inappropriate for an encyclopaedia and reads like a school prospectus, do you work there by any chance? Theroadislong (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 20 February 2024 review of submission by NiladriSarker

can you please help me to publish my content about my company NiladriSarker (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing but blatant advertising it was rejected meaning it will not be considered further and I have tagged it for speedy deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:01, 20 February 2024 review of submission by Chicken4War

Hello! I am suggesting that we merge this draft with the page for 25 Years Of Innocence. Chicken4War (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should propose this on the relevant article talk page, this is not an issue for this board, which is for discussing the submission of drafts and the drafts themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 21

05:46, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Ngaihthang

As long as, I can I was fix my doing work and please check it for me. Ngaihthang (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, stop moving it! It's considered disruptive and if you keep doing it, you could be liable for a block. Secondly, the draft has been rejected, so I can't really help you. Flux55 (my talk page) 06:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:19, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Drrabizadeh

How can I improve the article to be published on the article page? Considering that many references cannot be defined. Drrabizadeh (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drrabizadeh your draft was rejected, meaning it will not be considered further. You say "Considering that many references cannot be defined" which suggests the journal does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. Only topics that meet our WP:NOTABILITY criteria may have an article. Qcne (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing in the draft to suggest that the journal is notable, so it has been rejected, it won't be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:50, 21 February 2024 review of submission by 2003:E7:6724:B00:60BC:35A4:824:A9EF

I am using reliable sources for the wiki article, but it is still declined. Can anybody help? 2003:E7:6724:B00:60BC:35A4:824:A9EF (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sources seem to have been added after the decline, and the draft hasn't been resubmitted, so yes, it would indeed remain declined. If you believe that you have sufficiently addressed the decline reason(s), you need to resubmit the draft for a new review.
PS: If you have an account, please log into it whenever editing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:19, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Nwachinazo1

I seek assistance for my article's references which two Wikipedia editors have reviewed and declined on the basis that they do not meet notability test. While I appreciate their efforts and time, their reason is saddening and discouraging as their reviews do not consider the contents of most references in terms of substantive coverage of the subject which establishes its notability. I wonder why third-party, reliable and independent sources referenced as 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 12 are considered as merely mentioning the subject in the passing. The same goes to the news source cited in number 3. Wikipedia policy notes that an article's subject must not necessarily be the main discussion in a source cited but it is notable if the source gives the subject sufficient coverage. Hence, the cited sources for my submission achieve this aim. Does a news content need to be over-detailed before Wikipedia reviewers agree with its in-depth treatment? Seriously, they have left me more confused and discouraged. Please I seek clarifications because Wikipedia policies do not append fixed rules in terms of notability through the subject's references. Nwachinazo1 (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Christopher Ononukwe. Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References 4 and 5 are based on interviews with Ononukwe. I didn't look any further.
Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. ColinFine (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:20, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Drrabizadeh

How can the rejected draft be submitted after upgrading? Drrabizadeh (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can't there is zero evidence of any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:45, 21 February 2024 review of submission by 2601:189:4100:4760:55FE:523F:AC4:3F97

I still don't understand what the problem is, and earlier I was trying to say I was trying to make an encyclopedia article, but I didn't want to to say "I intended to make an encyclopedia article", as that sounded too broad and very unprofessional. 2601:189:4100:4760:55FE:523F:AC4:3F97 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'problem' is that this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for publicising things WP:MADEUPONEDAY.
This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:33, 21 February 2024 review of submission by WikiDan61

I'm intrerested in knowing the community's feeling about an editor who repeatedly removes prior AFC decline notices and comments from a draft. The decline templates produce comments stating not to delete the templates, but I am unsure whether there is an official policy or guideline about this. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I count it as disruptive editing, and would be minded to Reject. Qcne (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: drives me bonkers, just had one of those yesterday and earlier today (fortunately now blocked). In my experience they invariably turn out to be problem accounts - socks, LTAs, etc. (This one refers on their talk page to their 'old account'.) This draft is pure OR in any case, so I agree with Qcne, just reject it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, seems to be a sock. Reported. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:39, 21 February 2024 review of submission by RasheedVolkman

Hey there! I've requested the review of the first draft with little references. I've expanded the list of the references now, which are external mentions and Wikipedia mentions itself. Could you please tell me If I should do something else for this article to be submitted? RasheedVolkman (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RasheedVolkman: you have only two sources, neither of which counts towards notability.
BTW, were you involved in editing the recent Draft:DeepWeb (website) draft, by any chance? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir. I'm not related to the draft you referred to and wasn't aware it was previously made. Thanks for your answer! RasheedVolkman (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean If there are no reliable sources in open internet, the article will be declined and deleted in the end? RasheedVolkman (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RasheedVolkman: sources don't have to be online, but they do have to meet the standard laid out in WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:58, 21 February 2024 review of submission by ScratcherSonic

Why is my page being deleted? ScratcherSonic (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScratcherSonic, because you failed to establish that the topic is notable as Wikipedia defines that term. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that now. But, when it becomes a thing, get rickrolled. ScratcherSonic (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:23, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Bdschi

I have created a new page for the new University of Technology in Nuremberg, Germany. There is already a German Wikipedia page and I think it is also important to have an English language page. Especially as the university is seeking internal students and offers many degrees in English. How can I improve this page to get it approved? Bdschi (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that the German Wikipedia has different policies than the English Wikipedia, so what is acceptable there is not necessarily acceptable here. To be frank with you, Wikipedia has no interest in helping this relatively new university find prospective students.
Your draft just summarizes the routine activities of the University (groundbreaking, opening, hiring of staff); an article about this university must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this university, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. I think it is probably too soon for an article about this university here. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your valuable feedback. I didn't want to create this page to help the university to find foreign students, but to give potential students a neutral source of information.
I will follow your advice and wait and see whether this university will become a success or a failure. With only few students and even fewer departments, there is always the risk that the university gets closed again, despite all the money that was invested. Bdschi (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:05, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Deathinparadisefan11

Hi there! I would please like to know exactly why my article was declined. I know there could have possibly been improvements and I was eventually planning to add a picture so I was hoping someone else could help me with that when it gets resubmitted because I find it very confusing. I would like to know what else I needed to include or what I maybe did wrong in order for it to be approved as this article is very important to me and important for others. Deathinparadisefan11 (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathinparadisefan11: it was declined exactly for the reason given in the decline notice, namely that there is not sufficient evidence of the subject's notability, which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your reply. Apologies, I think there has been a misunderstanding mainly from me. I do think Florence is important in the series (more important than some other characters) but there are characters such as DI Jack Mooney who have their own Wikipedia page already with lesser information than what I have put in Florence's article. She isn't famous not super important. But important enough to have it's own fictional character page if Jack Mooney. In addition, Mooney was only in for 3 series whereas Florence was in for well, double that. I think I have just made her seem more important than she is because she is one of my favourite characters. Please do publish this and I can add more references if you need more. Deathinparadisefan11 (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Armansalmani

Most of the journals on wikipedia have an index and I tried to create an article page for this journal. At first, it was rejected due to lack of resources, but now we have upgraded it. Please check the draft one more time and let us know if there is any error so that we can fix it and create a new article on Wikipedia. Armansalmani (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Armansalmani: I rejected this draft because a draft on the same subject has already been rejected at Draft:The Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, and you're basically just trying to game the system. Don't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Armansalmani Who is "we"? Are you associated with this journal? The draft hadn't been touched since October and you seem to have created your account for the purpose of editing it. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to do with the journal, but I intend to introduce this journal and other journals that do not have a page on Wikipedia.  I hope you will review this article and if there is a problem, please let me know so that it can be fixed. Armansalmani (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question, who is "we"? It's not easy to find a draft unless you already know about it. How did you come across it? 331dot (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We made a verbal mistake.  not we.  I. 
This journal is related to my university.  But I have nothing to do with the journal. Armansalmani (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:13, 21 February 2024 review of submission by MathewArmstrong

This is all set for review, but I can't seem to submit it. It is saying 'An error occurred (ratelimited: You've exceeded your rate limit. Please wait some time and try again.). Please try again or refer to the help desk.' Can someone please submit this for me for review? I have tried many times. Thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC) Works now. Disregard. --MathewArmstrong (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have successfully submitted it. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:16, 21 February 2024 review of submission by Xmm-newton

Formatting problem. Added blue links and removed date of birth. Infobox will no rest inline and stands above text with a scrollbar below it. Cannot find fix. Xmm-newton (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xmm-newton: the infobox looks fine to me. It's probably just a case of the text flow or article layout changing slightly depending on your screen spec, when you add or remove content. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 22

01:37, 22 February 2024 review of submission by MarcusNguyen1988

Hi I'd like to ask why my article has been rejected. Best regards MarcusNguyen1988 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@marcusnguyen1988: you wrote about yourself. don't. ltbdl (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:04, 22 February 2024 review of submission by Pitambar Yadav(Google)

Why is it being rejected multiple times while other villages have been added by others in similar way tooo Pitambar Yadav(Google) (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. Basically, since in the past, Wikipedia has hosted articles which nowadays wouldn't fit with our guidelines, those shouldn't be used to try to make the case that another article should exist. Firstly, as stated in the draft, large portions of it are unsourced. Additionally, it reads like a promo for the village, which Wikipedia is not. Flux55 (my talk page) 02:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pitambar Yadav(Google) If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been checked by the community and are examples of good work.
What is the nature of the conflicts of interest you declared? Are you employed by Google? 331dot (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:36, 22 February 2024 review of submission by Abhilashsnair

Why this is not approving ? please guide Abhilashsnair (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhilashsnair: for the reasons given in the decline notices – did you read them at all? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:14, 22 February 2024 review of submission by Nritya02

I have added all the factual information to make Wikipedia readers aware of the musical artist, Rapper Chauhan. If you find anything inappropriate, you can rectify and get the Wikipedia article published. Nritya02 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nritya02: you don't ask a question, but this draft (such as it is) is completely unreferenced with no evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the references: https://nagpuroranges.com/knowing-all-this-about-rapper-chauhan-will-set-your-heart-racing/
https://hindi.news24online.com/astrology/rapper-chauhan-creates-new-world-record-sining-fastest-hanuman-chalisa-rap-song-rams/153207/
https://foxinterviewer.com/uncategorized/rapper-chauhan-biography-age-career-facts-more-2/
There is a lot about him on Google. If you need more references, I can provide them. Nritya02 (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to add them to the draft, nobody else will do it for you and please note that interviews are not independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:34, 22 February 2024 review of submission by 92.186.12.128

The reason given for declining this article is "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." We have references here from the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, CNN, NPR, Forbes, and several others.

I'm not sure how much more reliable third-party sources we could get.

Sorry, am I missing something? I really have no idea how to make this better.

Thank you for your help. 92.186.12.128 (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot of unreferenced information, eg. the 'Early Life and Education' and 'Personal Life' section have no citations at all.
The reviewer is also saying that notability has not been demonstrated, and better sources are needed. For that, it's not enough that the sources are reliable, they need to fully meet the WP:GNG standard. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 22 February 2024 review of submission by MintSpiral

This article keeps getting rejected for "not meeting notability requirements", but the artist has 2 albums published with an established label and therefore should be eligible. I believe there are also sufficient reputable sources to back up claims, but I have just added some more (including sources like Sirus XM and Warner Music). Can someone please tell me know I can improve this page to get it approved? The vague feedback left by reviewers is not helping much. MintSpiral (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been declined not rejected, some of your sources are not independent, for example interviews and Instagram. `Theroadislong (talk)

16:10, 22 February 2024 review of submission by 2.189.18.111

Hi Dear

The page I have created is facing various issues. I wanted to use your experience and solve these problems so that I can create a page for one of the emerging artists of Iranian cinema who has achieved many national and international successes. And has had many experiences in doing artistic and cultural works. I am trying to help introduce a part of Iranian art and culture.

Please help me in this.. 2.189.18.111 (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has several issues, as you say. The most serious is lack of evidence that the subject is notable. The contents are also almost entirely unreferenced, which is particularly problematic in an article on a living person. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His work has been referenced in reliable sources and news sites, both in Persian sources and in international sources, he has won short and documentary film awards in several international festivals and has been a judge in several international film festivals.
Links to movies and news are also given.
Please help spread this page 2.189.18.111 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inline external links, which the draft is riddled with throughout, are not referencing; in fact, they aren't even allowed. What we need to see is proper references with inline citations and footnotes linking to the sources. See WP:REFB for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

17:30, 22 February 2024 review of submission by Mosy O'Ginni

The article was reviewed and rejected. Mosy O'Ginni (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 22 February 2024 review of submission by 12DionneJ

Draft:Toyota G Transmission, Draft:Toyota TX-Series Transmission Draft:Toyota H-Series Transmission These 4 articles have been created by me to add context and more information to the Transmissions listed in the article "List of Toyota transmissions".

They have been repeatedly denied approval based on the source not being "reliable" when I have noted the source as the Toyota, the company that created these transmissions and from where I have acquired the noted info as such.

They have also been declined for not meeting "notability" standards. I believe the articles fall under the rules pertaining to the "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists" and the "Manual of Styles/Lists:Purposes of Lists" guidelines.

I'm simply building off of an existing list that has been compiled for the Toyota community over the past two decades.

Please approve these articles. Thank You 12DionneJ (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12DionneJ The template can only accommodate one draft title at a time, I've fixed this. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia is not interested in what Toyota says about its own products. This information may be better suited on alternative outlets. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a Toyota commentary on their own products. I believe you're misinterpreting the articles and why they exist. They are informational and are encyclopedic in nature. 12DionneJ (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was commentary. Toyota is a primary source for information on its own products; Wikipedia summarizes secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a mere database of information. 331dot (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been for the previous two decades this info has been compiled. What harm is the doing by staying on the site? Zero. 12DionneJ (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of those alternative outlets are able to structure the info provided in an affective and easily digestible manner compared to Wikipedia. 12DionneJ (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is a poor argument that would mean nothing could be removed from Wikipedia.
I'm sure there is some website somewhere on this planet that can host this information, or you could create your own.(perhaps start a Fandom wiki) Perhaps you could contact Toyota and ask if you could use their website. 331dot (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:34, 22 February 2024 review of submission by 191.156.59.69

Quiero crear este artículo porque es de una persona viva 191.156.59.69 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further.
Please communicate in English here on the English-language Wikipedia. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 23

Rapper Chauhan

Rapper Chauhan is a music arist. Nritya02 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nritya02: that's as may be. Do you have a question you would like to ask related to the AfC process? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:48, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Chukwuocha

I’m requesting an assistant for this article, it has been submitted for review and it’s yet to be reviewed, I neee assistance and also improvement for this article. Thank you Chukwuocha (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Socket (rapper) article Chukwuocha (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chukwuocha: you submitted this less than 48 hrs ago. As it says on top of the draft, "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,864 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient.
In the meantime, if you have specific questions to ask, you may pose them here, but asking for "assistance and also improvement" is rather vague. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:14, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Chaialhurriya

Can you please clarify why this article was rejected.....I was told it was because: Fails notability under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E but articles of similar nature have been published see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Hersh_Goldberg-Polin or 

Chaialhurriya (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaialhurriya: it doesn't matter what other articles may exist (see WP:OSE), what matters is whether this draft satisfies the current requirements for publication, which in my view as well as that of the reviewer who actually declined (not 'rejected', which is different) it, this doesn't. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be interested in this: Killing of Sidra Hassouna Ominateu (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ominateu: okay, so you've created that directly in the article space – what's your point? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant to state that the person who had their draft declined created it anyways. Ominateu (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ominateu: okay, thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:23, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Armansalmani

Why is this draft rejected? Armansalmani (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Armansalmani: because the first attempt was reviewed multiple times, and finally rejected as non-notable. There is no point in then creating additional copies of the same, especially to do so without offering any further evidence of notability. We can't keep reviewing the same subject over and over. This is fast becoming tendentious. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the final version has more changes and references than the initial version.  And I tried to have all the phrases with citations. Armansalmani (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Armansalmani I have had a look at the draft and I agree with the Reject. There is no indication this is acceptable for Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Armansalmani Not only that, just having citations is not important. It's written in a style considered to be advertising and promotional. Articles have to be written in a neutral POV without any errors or promotional content. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Armansalmani: this draft cites two sources, one of which is pretty useless in what comes to establishing notability, and the other is worse than useless. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:19, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Robert20654

Johannes Maximilinan stated that "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified." My submission Pentaclub (The Club of Five) has a lot of notes that refer to external third party links where every information can be verified. What should I have to add? Many thanks. Robert20654 Robert20654 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert20654: you cannot cite Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia, and Facebook and Instagram are user-generated and therefore not reliable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: thank you very much. I removed Wikipedia as a source and also FB & IG. Then I've resubmitted the draft. I hope it should be fine. Can you check it please? Thank you again. Robert20654 (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert20654: the ref #1 is still Wikipedia, and #2 is Facebook. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing: sorry for that and thank you. I've deleted them. Do you think the page can be moved now? And if yes, can you help me, please? Thank you. Robert20654 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have submitted it and it is pending. Please be patient; reviews are conducted by volunteers. Do you have a particular need for a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:24, 23 February 2024 review of submission by CMG95

This submission has been in review since Jan 18, any insight into what may be holding up the review would be appreciated CMG95 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMG95 Drafts are reviewed in no particular order by volunteers. As noted on your draft, "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 1,853 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:23, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Stefo89

Hi everyone, I'd like some help to understand how this article draft can be improved. What are some examples of concrete changes that can be applied? The user who reviewed the draft wrote that the style looks like a press release rather than an article–probably due to my attempt to maintain neutrality. Also, the references cited are web articles on Google with sources such as TechCrunch that I see mentioned in many other Wikipedia articles about companies, too. Thank you in advance for your feedback. Stefo89 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefo89: the concrete changes you need to make must directly address the decline reason, namely lack of evidence of notability. And if the reviewer has additionally commented on promotional tone and/or content, that needs to be addressed as well. These reviews are not done flippantly, the reviewers have real reasons to say what they say. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:43, 23 February 2024 review of submission by Johnnybart2

It's been four months since I resubmitted my article on David T. Adams and I've had no response on its status. Can someone contact me and advise? Johnnybart2 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@johnnybart2: except you haven't resubmitted it. ltbdl (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 24

02:19, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Beyond Advice

The cited sources are public and reliable. I need assistance not only for clarification but also for reformulating the text if necessary.

Regards Beyond Advice (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the article is missing inline citations. Youprayteas (t • c) 07:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:25, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Gosatin2

How to change a title? I have to "Move" option in the Tool menu Gosatin2 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about that for now. If and when the draft is accepted, it will be published at an appropriate title. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:28, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Gosatin2

The reviewer asked for more references without specifying what facts are needing that. The original (Italian) version has only those references and already has been accepted. Gosatin2 (talk) 05:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gosatin2: the Italian Wikipedia is a completely separate project from us; what is acceptable there, may not be acceptable here, and vice versa. Content submitted to the English-language Wikipedia must meet our requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:08, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Katsuyorisan

What can I do to improve this article and make it acceptable? Please help me, thanks. Katsuyorisan (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Katsuyorisan: nothing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to who or which rule? Your answer isn't acceptable to me. I edited the article and fixed all the issues multiple times. Without a logical explanation about why it got rejected, this totally seems like censorship by mini-dictator mods. I've donated to Wikipedia before, and being rejected without proper reasoning is just obnoxious. Katsuyorisan (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is VERY poorly sourced, showing zero evidence of any notability and reads like a hoax. Rejection was the correct result. Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised that personal attacks are not permitted. Wikipedia is not for telling about something that was created one day. You have no journalistic or academic sources summarized, showing how this meets the definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Instead of getting a clear answer like this, I get "nothing, this draft has been rejected and will not be considered further". Please warn @DoubleGrazing for vague and condescending answers. Katsuyorisan (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was rejected by 3 established editors for lacking in sourcing and presentation. I also review AFC and we are allowed to do that because we have an established and clear record of understanding what an article needs to pass muster. This would appear to be a consensus if we take those responses collectively which I don't think would change. If it was going to change one of the reviewers would have likely approved it. If you have a copy I'd be happy to look and see if I agree. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 24 February 2024 review of submission by User no wiki

Hi, I am struggling to understand what I need to change to have this listing published. Can I please ask for some assistance?

Thank you User no wiki (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User no wiki: you're being asked to cite your sources inline; currenty ⅔ of them are lumped together at the end where they support nothing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my latest decline comment @User no wiki, you've unfortunately made it worse with your latest edits. Carefully follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE. Qcne (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:57, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Pickerwheel

The rejection reason is not neutral

Please find more details in here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Windawindawinda Pickerwheel (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickerwheel: you're Windawindawinda, then, are you? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Pickerwheel (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase: your account is < 3 hrs old, and you've straight away created this draft and found that talk page; what is your involvement in this matter and/or with this subject? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking on people is a serious crime @DoubleGrazing
Wikipedia has an option in creating an article that doesn't allow everyone to ask what's their connections with the subject
Options in creating an article:
I'm paid to edit
I'm writing about myself, or a close person/subject
I'm not connected to the subject Pickerwheel (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pickerwheel the sources in the draft do not show notability for David Windsor and I therefore agree with the rejection as an uninvolved reviewer. By any chance are you David Windsor? Qcne (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that a Wikipedia user is allowed to ask for the identities of other users. The article show notability based on Wikipedia guidelines. What do you mean it doesn't show notability? Pickerwheel (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qcne Pickerwheel (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, I am absolutely allowed to ask if you are David Windsor - or more generally if you have a conflict of interest. So I ask again: are you David Windsor or do you have a conflict of interest in this article?
The draft does not prove notability under WP:NPEOPLE. Let's go through your sources to understand why:
  1. The Independent: an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.
  2. Variety: A brief mention and so does not provide WP:SIGCOV to establish notability.
  3. emmys.com: an interview so cannot be used to establish notability.
  4. Variety: A brief mention and so does not provide WP:SIGCOV to establish notability.
Then in the external links:
  1. IMDB: Not permitted to use as a source under WP:IMDB.
  2. Rotten Tomatoes: Just a database entry, does not show notability.
Therefore, the draft does not meet our notability standards at this time. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't violate your privacy by outing your identity if you haven't done so, and based on off wiki information. We can absolutely ask about conflicts of interest, or if you are the subject you are writing about. If you are paid by David Windsor, the Terms of Use require disclosure. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:21, 24 February 2024 review of submission by 102.89.23.130

Please don't let my Wikipedia page get deleted, let it get approved because this is my first time publishing with my details on Wikipedia 102.89.23.130 (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that Nafees meets our special definition of notability, therefore he (you?) does not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. You should not be using Wikipedia to promote or advertise a subject. Qcne (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:40, 24 February 2024 review of submission by User no wiki

I am trying to better understand what is missing from this publishing still, but I would greatly appreciate help to find a solution to match Wikipedias demands. Thank you for helping out so quickly! User no wiki (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have left clear instructions @User no wiki on how to reference properly. For the third time, please go to WP:INTREFVE and use in-line citations. Qcne (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:08, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Fabrica.de.colores

Please see my reply on the talk page there. Wikipedia has a less general article (Mapheus 5) so I am wondering why the attempt to create a more general one was declined. Fabrica.de.colores (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrica.de.colores I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). 331dot (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:12, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Siqi Huang

My references are all from reliable offical news websites. My topic is a Chinese railway station, so all references are from China, but they are offical news websites and totally reliable. Siqi Huang (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:28, 24 February 2024 review of submission by Panzlms

I am currently eddiding the page as asked and see that LandmarkScout was cut in 2. Probably the autocorrect kicked in. Can you help me with this? In this case it is one word LandmarkScout. Panzlms (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific title is not particularly relevant while a draft. You may just leave a note on the talk page for the reviewers, when accepted, it can be placed at the proper title. 331dot (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:32, 24 February 2024 review of submission by EdvardsWWE

How could I improve this? EdvardsWWE (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nicely as I can say this, there is no amount of improvement at this point for this to warrant an article. It looks like a personal pet theory or perspective which for us is not a notable subject. Now if it develops into one someday and multiple independent sources write abut it sure. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 25

06:52, 25 February 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F4:35:305C:60D2:30FF:FEA4:6866

When will Vignesh Sivajayam page get live? 2409:40F4:35:305C:60D2:30FF:FEA4:6866 (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say never, given that it has been rejected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:13, 25 February 2024 review of submission by 46.13.230.117

Hey,

Can you tell me which reliable source else needs to be presented, since I am referring to Newmann's page here on Wiki, which contains info about the novel as well as the classical heroes of the book? 46.13.230.117 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refererring to a different article is insufficient- if you are copying over information, you need the sources used in that article too. You will also need to offer sources that discuss this book itself in order for it to merit a standalone article. See Referencing for beginners too. 331dot (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:25, 25 February 2024 review of submission by UC 142

I require assistance for where I need more references (or quality ones) UC 142 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What assistance are you seeking? You will need at least references from independent professional reviewers that review the film. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the question but, by independent professional reviewers, from avid fans of like yaoi who have watched the film> UC 142 (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean professional film critics, people whose job it is to write reviews of films and do so without being prompted or asked- not reviews by fans. Rankings from movie review websites similar to Rotten Tomatoes can also be used. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see.. the drama is on its last episode next week, perhaps I wait then I'll look for reviews? No? And once I do, where do I source them in my article? UC 142 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You place the sources with the content that they are supporting; see Referencing for Beginners. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I probably sound dumb, but is this the reason why my article keeps getting declined? UC 142 (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are happy to answer your good faith questions. Yes, the lack of proper sources is why the draft has been declined. User-generated websites and social media are not acceptable sources, and you don't have acceptable sources that establish that this is notable. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a new article is the most diffcult task to attempt on Wikipedia, if you haven't already, I would suggest reading Your First Article and using the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:34, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Spongy mysophyll productions

How to edit and save a draft without publishing Spongy mysophyll productions (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1210188607"