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:Manago_Hotel
Line 546: Line 546:
:That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. See [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. See [[WP:OSE|other stuff exists]]. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are [[WP:GOODARTICLE|classified as good articles]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:You are arguing based on a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. The most viable route of the the two possibilities is to meet WP:GNG which means to argue that there is '''''in depth''''' coverage of him in independent WP:RS's. BTW IMO this criteria has been met in the sources provided in the article. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
:You are arguing based on a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. The most viable route of the the two possibilities is to meet WP:GNG which means to argue that there is '''''in depth''''' coverage of him in independent WP:RS's. BTW IMO this criteria has been met in the sources provided in the article. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

== 02:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Rafaelquint99 ==
{{Lafc|username=Rafaelquint99|ts=02:56, 27 February 2024|draft=Draft:Manago_Hotel}}
Requesting a review of the cuisine section to make it more encyclopedic. Added references to section and rephrased part of the section otherwise. [[User:Rafaelquint99|Rafaelquint99]] ([[User talk:Rafaelquint99|talk]]) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:56, 27 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 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]
I'm a Toyota Master Tech. I already have access to their website. This is for the majority of the community that doesn't have access. What's the point of having wiki pages for vehicles then? These pages are simply details regarding what transmission a vehicle is equipped with. 12DionneJ (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ: Wikipedia doesn't aim to have an article on every imaginable topic, but rather on topics which are notable. Demonstrate notability by citing the required source, and we can then publish the article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article falls 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. 12DionneJ (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ: says who? If you wish to wikilawyer this through, you need to clearly cite specific policy grounds.
According to my interpretation, this is not a list-type article; it is an article (draft) on a product line, which includes, and the draft therefore necessarily covers, a number of individual products. Normal notability requirements would still apply. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is directly from the list "List of Toyota Transmissions". This simply provides more details about them. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ: I'm not sure how that's relevant?
Anyway, you now have autoconfirmed status, so you can technically publish these drafts yourself. I wouldn't recommend it, as they've been declined for a reason, and new page patrol is unlikely to let them remain published for long. But you clearly are unwilling to take advice on this, so you must do what you must do. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You must be dense. "I'm not sure how that's relevant?" Well when you're saying it has nothing to do with a list, me telling you which list it's in regards to is absolutely relevant. lmfao 12DionneJ (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@12DionneJ: if you could avoid the insults, I'd appreciate it.
I think we're done here. Have a nice day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably think before you speak then. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:19, 26 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]
@Johnnybart2, it looks as though you last submitted it on October 6, and it was declined on November 7, so now it's waiting on you again. After being declined, reviewers don't look at the article again until it gets resubmitted. You should have the button to resubmit if you wish enabled, but have a look at the reviewers' notes and fix the issues mentioned to give your article the best possible chance of being accepted! StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:48, 26 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]
You appear to have written your draft BACKWARDS. You almost certainly need to throw it away and start again. Remember that 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) 20:29, 25 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]
The first reference is to an interview. The second is a technical spec, which undoubtedly comes from the company. The fourth is evidently a press release (why is it tagged as being in Lithuanian?) 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.
So the only source which even might contribute to establishing notability is the third - but it needs analysis to determine how far it is merely repeating what Honda say. In any case, one independent source is not enough. ColinFine (talk) 20:36, 25 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]
It looks as if most of the sources are from Stenseth, or from her associates (eg galleries who have shown her work). None of those are relevant to a Wikipedia article. 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) 20:41, 25 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]
I'm afraid that. like most people who come here and try to create a new article before they have learnt any of the craft of writing Wikipedia articles, you are having a frustrating and disappointing time. Would you try and build a house when you have just started learning to be a builder? Or book a public concert the day after you first picked up a guitar?
In addition, one of the Wikipedia policies that you have not found out about it the one very strongly advises against writing about yourself. 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. This means that to write about yourself successfully in Wikipedia, you will need (after finding the independent published sources that are essential), to forget everything you know about yourself, and write only what they say about you. Do you see what that is not encouraged? ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 25 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]
Because Mapheus 5 is a thoroughly inadequate article, and if it were submitted for review now, it would absolutely not be accepted. See WP:OSE. ColinFine (talk) 20:52, 25 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]
Please see WP:FORUM. ColinFine (talk) 20:55, 25 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]

@Spongy mysophyll productions: that's not possible (other than by working locally on your device using a text editor of some sort), because anything you save within Wikipedia, including in the User: and Draft: name spaces, becomes by definition publicly available. That's why "saving" a draft is referred to as "publishing"; it doesn't mean publishing into the main encyclopaedia, it just means creating a publicly-available draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:59, 25 February 2024 review of submission by PlaneCrashKing1264

I dont know whats wrong PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PlaneCrashKing1264: are you referring to  Courtesy link: Draft:Good & The Beautiful?
It has been declined because there is absolutely no evidence of notability, which is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i suck at understanding some words. What does notability mean, exactly? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PlaneCrashKing1264, click the word 'notability' in DoubleGrazing's reply and you'll be taken to the page on notability - you'll find our definition and how to work out whether something will be seen as notable there.
If you have a look at the reviewer's notes (in the big box at the top of your draft) there are some links there as well that will show you what you need to know about writing an article. You might also be interested in clicking this link: Your First Article - some of the information you'll already have seen, but it's a good place to start for a thorough overview. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what's wrong? PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only source you have provided is the curriculum itself. Any article about this must summarize what independent reliable sources say about it. 331dot (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one, though. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And i cant find anything about it. PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:52, 25 February 2024 review of submission by HCUPa

I was trying to use taxobox for a draft article on the genus Zygopauropus, and I seem to have messed up the template for this genus (I think I deleted some necessary code) and don't know how to fix the problem. HCUPa (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HCUPa: a couple of the earlier revisions have working taxoboxes, can you not copy & paste from them? Eg. this seems at least superficially okay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I managed to fix the taxobox template now. HCUPa (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HCUPa You might want to install the WP:Twinkle gadget which makes reverting edits easier along with several other tasks. Another option is to do a restore when multiple edits need to be reverted (click on the last good version from the edit history and use the "restore this verson" link at the top.) S0091 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 25 February 2024 review of submission by BDcelebwiki

what sources should I use? and what can I do to make this article acceptable? BDcelebwiki (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used all the reliable sources available out there BDcelebwiki (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BDcelebwiki, if you have used all the reliable sources available, then it might simply be too soon for this article to exist. Often it takes time for people to become well-known and be written about in reliable sources. Until then, you just have to wait - you can keep improving the draft while you wait, of course, or you can try doing some little edits and getting to know how Wikipedia works. Once your subject has become notable by Wikipedia standards, you can submit a draft article about them again. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:28, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Dishakabra12

Dear friend,

I am curious why you say that the article is not noteworthy? Nan has been recognised by various organisations, people and has had a wide-ranging impact in the whale research and conservation field. Could you please advise on what makes a wikipedia page more meaningful and relevant?

Kind regards Disha Dishakabra12 (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are based on what reliable independent sources say about a subject, your draft had NONE of these. Theroadislong (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:41, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Nwachinazo1

My draft continues to receive frequent rejections by reviewers despite my improvement on the references. To some extent, reasons given by these reviewers are contrary among themselves yet I continue to provide explanations on why their reviews were unfair and not thorough enough. Please I seek assistance on the draft above and why it should be accepted, given several reliable, third-party and independent sources that significantly support the subject. Part of Wikipedia's criterion says that a subject's notability does not necessarily need to be main topic of discussion but adequate treatment of the subject. This I have achieved. Nwachinazo1 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was rightfully declined and then instead of asking for assistance you then proceeded to continually just submit without any improvement not once but twice. This does nothing but waste more time and lead to rejections like this. I have reviewed the sources and they all seem to be quotes of the subject, mere mentions of the subject or press releases none which meet all of the criteria to satisfy WP:GNG. If you would like to review the links in the decline messages and work on the draft to actually improve it then you can reach out the the last reviewer and ask them to rescind the rejection. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:50, 25 February 2024 review of submission by PomPomLover96

Hello fellow Wikiwriters,

I need some help for Dan Slepian's Wikipedia page for more independent sources to prove notability. Can someone kindly help?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Slepian PomPomLover96 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PomPomLover96: in a word, no. We're happy to help answer questions about the AfC process, but the onus is entirely on the draft author to do the necessary research and editing. The way you should go about this is to find some sources which meet the relevant notability guideline, eg. WP:GNG, and summarise what they have said about the subject, citing each source against the information it has provided. If you cannot find sufficient sources to begin with, then you shouldn't even bother writing the draft, because it wouldn't be accepted without evidence of notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:03, 25 February 2024 review of submission by Walter Tau

I feel, that the draft is suitable for submission. It meet both Notability and Sufficiency of Disclosure criteria. It can be iproved by other editors once it is posted. Walter Tau (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "Sufficiency of Disclosure" means, or why it might be relevant to evaluating the notability of a draft. Which of your references are in-depth discussions of the case or its outcome by people wholly unconnected with the parties or the case? That is the only kind of source which is relevant. ColinFine (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

03:41, 26 February 2024 review of submission by MathewArmstrong

I am wanting to get some assistance on this Draft. Sources I have been able to find initially mentioned about the production company he owns, however I was able to find further sources on a show he was on and also notable shows he had produced, which in some regard, I thought may be able to get him over the notable like for Wikipedia. I will be patient however, thank you! MathewArmstrong (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about the company he owns, or about shows he has been on, are not relevant unless they contain significant coverage of him. ColinFine (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:06, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Shravani Chary

what are the changes i can make in my draft for it to get approved? it's rejected saying that it looks more like an essay. Shravani Chary (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shravani Chary, I'm sorry to say that when a draft is rejected, that means it will not be approved no matter what you do. The reviewer has left you a note (below the big box at the top of the draft) with suggestions for how to make use of some of the information. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:59, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Umepand99

Could you please guide me on how to publish this draft version of the modification? As they are also a CCaaS provider! Umepand99 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Umepand99: this draft was rejected (a year ago!) and will therefore not be considered further. In any case, it consists of nothing more than a list of redlinks, which does not add up to a viable article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how to merge article with other articles Shravani Chary (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shravani,
Thank you for message.
They have developed an impressive LLM model and offer their CCaaS platform to telecom companies. Their expertise in the domain and AI innovation prompt me to reconsider the request. However, it's challenging as I've included all referenced online articles, which I believe are crucial for establishing the brand and company name for approval.
Could you please provide guidance on what specific information is needed for approval? This company's innovative work deserves recognition. Umepand99 (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which article does this message refers to? Shravani Chary (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Contact_Center_as_a_Service_(CCaaS) Umepand99 (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its a deleted article Shravani Chary (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not intended as a form of recognition or honor- our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources say about topics that meet the notability criteria. If you have
You seem to have written about your company(as well as another draft about yourself)- you must declare as a paid editor, see WP:PAID, and read conflict of interest. The text of Draft:StarTele Logic was highly promotional and the sources provided merely documented the routine business activities of the company- they did not summarize what they see as important/significant/influential about the company- what makes it a notable company. We don't want to know merely what the company does or what it thinks about itself. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:57, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Hrtacp

This page has been rejected by a bot, please help in regards to this Hrtacp (talk) 09:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was rejected by an experienced reviewer User:Usedtobecool I concur that there is nothing notable about you, sorry. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious as to how you own the copyright to the image of yourself, which is not a selfie and appears to be professionally taken. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 49.229.136.124

May I know what additional infos and references should I add in? Thanks. 49.229.136.124 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that you can do, the draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Any article about this person(is it yourself?) should summarize what independent reliable sources say about them, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. If you have such sources, please discuss it with the reviewer directly first. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been rejected, you are not notable in Wikipedia terms, the draft will not be considered further. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:27, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Rj8

This is a local movie with limited coverage or source citation like journals. I have cited the necessary articles to confirm its a real film. why cant it be published? Rj8 (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rj8: because there is no evidence that the subject is notable, either by WP:GNG or WP:NFILM standards. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has said it is not real. Wikipedia is not a mere database of things that exist. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there's literally hundreds of articles about different movies, tv shows, etc. There's already precedence for articles like this. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See other stuff exists for that argument. Theroadislong (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong so y'all are going to delete the thousands of articles that exist on the genre? Sounds like a group of editors actively trying to ruin a once great website. Stuff like this is LITERALLY what the website was created for. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:48, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 193.187.220.2

Please support, this is supposed to be just basic info about that company, what needs to be adjusted and I will, thx tom 193.187.220.2 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft is insufficiently referenced, and the sources do not establish notability per WP:NCORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has zero interest in basic information about that company, Wikipedia reports what reliable independent sources say about a topic, also see WP:SOLUTIONS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:56, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 122.161.242.21

why my article was rejected? 

122.161.242.21 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for self-promotion. You want a social media or blogging platform, rather. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 26 February 2024 review of submission by 12DionneJ

Simply continuing work that has been done regarding the topic of Toyota Transmissions that has been done over the past 2 decades here on wikipedia. Please approve this article as well as the other 3 I have created regarding these transmission series. 12DionneJ (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Kevin-Luv

This About The Famous Artist Lil 2jay I Work With Him Can You Please Out This On His Google thank You Kevin-Luv (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin-Luv: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:49, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Bettylella

Hello, as you can see from the talks we have modified the page multiple times, can you help me figure out what could be keeping it from being published? It seems to me that it respects the criteria of notability Thanks in advance Bettylella (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bettylella: what's currently keeping it from being published is that it hasn't been resubmitted for another review. If you feel that you have sufficiently addressed the previous decline reasons, click on that blue 'resubmit' button and a reviewer will take a look at some point. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick glance suggests that some of the sources do not mention him and others are not independent. Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I think that the problem is, that I'm not use to work on the English wiki. In the reference 9 you have put "failed verification" because I have referenced the web link instead the report but, if you open the report, at 39 page Annexe I, you have the name of Mr Leclercq as one of 39 members of the High Level Expert Group of the European Commission. I apologize for all these problems and thank you so much for you time and help. Bettylella (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettylella: yes, you should wherever technically possible point to the specific URL that contains the source which directly supports the given statement. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but the EN wikipedia is different from the italian and french ones with which I am used to work and it seems I cannot reference PDF files. Can one of you make it or tel me how to do it? Bettylella (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bettylella: citing a PDF should work the same as citing any other online resource, just by pointing to the PDF's URL. But yeah, I'll take a look at it shortly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your answer. Bettylella (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:04, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Siqi Huang

What should I do to improve my reference? Siqi Huang (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Siqi Huang: I don't know, and I can't read the sources; pinging Johannes Maximilian who was the last reviewer to decline this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please improve the citation style. Bare links or a set of characters aren't very useful; please use a common citation style, e.g., author, title, work, date, access-date for online sources. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 26 February 2024 review of submission by Wowlastic10

User:Zoglophie This article is different from Laccadive Islands but it assists in gaining knowledge of islands present in Lakshadweep, so it would be helpful if you move it to the main article page. Thanks!! Wowlastic10 (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wowlastic10: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. The last reviewer suggested incorporating the salient new content (appropriately supported) into the existing Laccadive Islands article instead. Feel free to do that. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:22, 26 February 2024 review of submission by JesseCan

tO all wikipedia moderators and editors . . . PLEASE FUCK OFF & DIE JesseCan (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:09, 26 February 2024 review of submission by James.mcgilfoy203

The rejection issue was "not reliable sources". I was wondering while writing the article if citing the primary sources for app store links was incorrect. However, it has sources from large publications as theverge.com. I'm a bit unsure if they are not considered "reliable", but based on the article linked it was a secondary source reviewing the original article. Would it help if I removed the primary source app store links from the sources list, and only used them in the external links section? Any help appreciated. I'm trying to get into Wikipedia editing. James.mcgilfoy203 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

00:19, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Boxinglove

This is an event as a boxing lover we need to know about any upcoming boxing event and its always in media and its official, not promoting its just for information for our boxing fans. Boxinglove (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

advice all how can i fix this. Boxinglove (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have little more than announcements of the fight as sources. For this fight to merit an article before it occurs, you need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the fight and how it is notable. 331dot (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:23, 27 February 2024 review of submission by AWolfSpider

I'm confused as to why this was rejected. These sources are both about as reputable as they get in terms of spiders and there is no information in the stub I wrote that isn't verified in one if not both of the sources. AWolfSpider (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was declined, not rejected. "Rejected" has a specific meaning here, that a draft may not be resubmitted. Declined means that it may be resubmitted. 331dot (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:26, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Designedits

The decision that this figure is not notable, is entirely subjective and by virtue of the fact that this designer works in the public sphere at an International and domestic level on projects of significant public and private significance is pedantically short-sighted and completely inconsistent with the existence of other Australian figures in this industry who currently have live wikipedia articles. These call on far inferior references and are outdated or not even correctly attributed. (see links at the base of this entry to two examples).

How is it that the importance of the 20 year career of an award-winning, author, internationally published and actively working Australian designer isn't deemed notable? The superficial and subjective nature of this review by user Xegma - a self-professed resident of Kolkata, India, whose special interests are Indian television - demonstrates little understanding of the place this individual holds in this industry - locally or abroad. How is this not peer reviewed, in the context of other articles that have been approved for Wikipedia. It makes very little sense.

James Treble Greg Natale Designedits (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Designedits I fixed your link, the "Draft:" needs to be included. We don't need the whole url when linking to an article or page on Wikipedia, just place the title in double brackets, as I've done here.
That other articles exist does not necessarily mean that they were "approved" by anyone. These other articles could themselves be problematic and you would be unaware of this. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. See other stuff exists. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those that are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing based on a misunderstanding of WP:Notability. The most viable route of the the two possibilities is to meet WP:GNG which means to argue that there is in depth coverage of him in independent WP:RS's. BTW IMO this criteria has been met in the sources provided in the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

02:56, 27 February 2024 review of submission by Rafaelquint99

Requesting a review of the cuisine section to make it more encyclopedic. Added references to section and rephrased part of the section otherwise. Rafaelquint99 (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1210535061"