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:DXVK
Line 552: Line 552:
i have created a article based on human resource management software now it has been removed from the review desk. what was the reason for the rejection [[User:Aswin012|Aswin012]] ([[User talk:Aswin012|talk]]) 09:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
i have created a article based on human resource management software now it has been removed from the review desk. what was the reason for the rejection [[User:Aswin012|Aswin012]] ([[User talk:Aswin012|talk]]) 09:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Aswin012}} The draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed your post to link to it. Please examine the message left by the reviewer. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Aswin012}} The draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed your post to link to it. Please examine the message left by the reviewer. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

== 10:29, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Artem S. Tashkinov ==
{{Lafc|username=Artem S. Tashkinov|ts=10:29, 7 May 2024|draft=Draft:DXVK}}
* The translation layer which now supports '''over 20K Windows titles''' under Linux is not "noteworthy"?
* A software title which made Linux an actual gaming platform?
* Something which is sponsored and used by [[Valve Corporation]] to enable gaming on [[Steam Deck]]?
OK, then, screw it! It's not my issue that "esteemed" media doesn't want to write about it. It's sad but I'll just let it expire if no one volunteers to make this article WP-compliant. [[User:Artem S. Tashkinov|Artem S. Tashkinov]] ([[User talk:Artem S. Tashkinov|talk]]) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:29, 7 May 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


May 1

03:08, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 202.134.9.153

Can you review the article early? Major improvements has been taken.202.134.9.153 (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't do 'fast track reviews' here at the help desk. As it says on top of the draft, reviews "may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,439 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:02, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Dongiri. Ajay Kumar

What is the reason behind the rejection Dongiri. Ajay Kumar (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't accept copyright violations. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 07:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate what you consider to be copyright violations. Thank you. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you asking? Over 90% of it was copyvio, and has now been removed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As DoubleGrazing says, the violating content has since been forcibly removed from the draft. As to your sources, they're terrible - one is a Google search, which we cannot cite (too sparse) and I'm sceptical the other meets WP:MEDRS, which is the sourcing standard that applies here (since we're discussing psychiatry here). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:33, 1 May 2024 review of submission by TrevorGlynLocke

New to Wikipedia, I might not have understood all that I have read. Am looking for major errors in the text I have made. If anyone would like to offer guidance, this would be greatly appreciated. TrevorGlynLocke (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have ignored the advice given, namely... unreliable sources which include Instagram, Waterstones, YouTube, Discogs, Amazon and assorted blogs have not been removed. See WP:REFB for help with correctly formatting sources and see WP:YFA and WP:MOS for general help with article format. Theroadislong (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TrevorGlynLocke I've fixed your post to provide a link to your draft as intended. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:04, 1 May 2024 review of submission by ناشناس879

What do I do to get my article published? I've done everything you asked، but every time the article is rejected. ناشناس879 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ناشناس879: this draft has indeed been finally (not "every time", but eventually) rejected, and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Ethan Cale B. Domugho

Why did my article get declined? Ethan Cale B. Domugho (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethan Cale B. Domugho: it wasn't merely declined, but actually rejected. That was for lack of evidence of notability, as stated in the rejection notice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:30, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 159.242.125.170

Hi This page is based on the talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Verstappen

This discussion will surround however multiple articles and rules regarding lists, and list sensibilities.

User Tvx1 asserts a consensus has been reached that the draft list is not notable, however, whilst not wishing to use WP:OTHERSTUFF , there is a strong precedent for this type of list for Formula 1 drivers as 5 drivers of similar notability have featured lists in this format. If not for the pattern of featured lists here then I would not write, however, due to this I believe that Tvx1 is wrongly asserting there is a consensus against such articles. Aside from Tvx1 and user Bretonbanquet, this has featured list precedent and seemingly a consensus in favour of this submission. Tvx1 has a history of being overruled for their opinions on such lists, as evidenced in the talk pages for the featured lists for existing F1 driver wins.

I do not wish to ask for this list to be published, I wish for the submission rejection to be overturned to allow the original talk page to reach consensus (especially as on the talk page, Tvx1 wishes to delete the featured lists I have linked below also which is contentious as best as highlighted here on a deletion request page from Tvx1 for one of the featured lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna )

It is possible user Tvx1 does not fully understand LISTN guidelines and continues to push for their interpretation in spite of consensus as an honest attempt to improve the site quality, however, it seems to be of limited use for this draft.

The featured lists for precedent are below, implying a Wiki-wide consensus that such articles are in fact notable and that this denial is worthy of being appealed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Lewis_Hamilton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Michael_Schumacher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Ayrton_Senna

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Alain_Prost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Sebastian_Vettel 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing this with Tvx1? If you haven't, I suggest you do so, as rejection appeals would normally be made to the rejecting reviewer directly. If you don't get a response or can't reach a mutual understanding, you can then come back here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
As you can see I am an IP user so it is a little harder to hold conversations, but from the talk page and their previous deletion attempts it is clear that this editor does not view a compromise as possible otherwise that would have been my first port of call.
Other people in the talk however have made appeals which have been ignored, and this draft was denied with quite some haste with no time to discuss it on the page which doesn't help with this. If your advice is still the same, let me know and I can make an attempt.
Thanks! 159.242.125.170 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certainly worth making an attempt, rather than assuming nothing would come of it, even if it only ends up proving that assumption correct. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, hopefully it will lead somewhere because having one of these articles missing from a full set of 6 just feels odd. As other editors note, it should be all 6 or none and currently having an odd one out makes for an inconsistency which seems strange. And apologies for taking your time! 159.242.125.170 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise at all, that's what I'm here for. Hope you find a resolution, but if not, do come back and we'll try to help. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:40, 1 May 2024 review of submission by 86.18.72.59

How does the article lack reliable sources when I cite newspaper articles and academic books mentioning the subject matter? 86.18.72.59 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft wasn't declined for lack of reliable sources, but rather for lack of evidence of notability (which requires sources to be among other things reliable, but there is much more to it).
That said, the offline sources are also cited in a way that makes at least some of them difficult to identify for verification. Offline sources are acceptable, but must be cited with sufficient bibliographical details, including page numbers, to enable them to be reliably identified. See WP:OFFLINE for more on this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:35, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

Filing on behalf of DC1973 (talk · contribs). This autobiographical draft from late October 2023 (under G13 at this writing) has now become the basis of Draft:Wranglestone, a refocus/rework discussing his debut novel. Having tagged the latter with {{Copied}} on its talk page, I have half a mind to turn the precursor into a redirect before things get out of hand--but I don't want to take chances until I'm sure the coast is clear. Is this ploy an acceptable resolution? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slgrandson: are you saying you'd turn Draft:Darren Charlton (author) into a redir in order to preserve its edit history, but otherwise effectively abandon it by so doing? And then go forth with the Wranglestone draft instead? Or did I catch the wrong end of this particular stick? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting for preservation reasons. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:07, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Founderofthecity1234

Hi, Can someone help me get this draft approved. If you look at other organizations doing the same work the articles are all the same as in this draft. I don't understand why this one keeps getting denied. look up feeding America or other local food banks. why is this criteria for this organization different for others. also this page was active for over 1 year previously Founderofthecity1234 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Founderofthecity1234: This draft has been rejected and will not be considered further. I unfortunately do not have the time to do a deep-dive on your sources at the moment, but will likely do so tonight after I get off work. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Founderofthecity1234: Refer to User:Jéské Couriano/Decode:
This looks like a case of the chaff choking the wheat. Read Help:Referencing for beginners and get rid of all the sources above that are useless or nonfunctional. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
these are the same type of articles. shouldn't you flag these pages also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda_County_Community_Food_Bank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Harvest_of_Silicon_Valley
I can continue down the list. I am bringing these to your attention, will you go now and take these pages down? Founderofthecity1234 (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Founderofthecity1234 Please see other stuff exists. These other articles you have seen could also be inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate content to get by us. We can only address what we know about. This is why each draft or article is judged on its own merits. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles.
If you are literally the founder of this organization, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID and WP:COI. Please disclose soon. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:14, 1 May 2024 review of submission by Slgrandson

Filing on behalf of Azazel23 (talk · contribs)--wherever he's been since last July. Another one close to the G13 dumpster, discussing a Brisbanehey, Bluey fans! rock group of recent vintage (2008-2023). Turned down for not meeting WP:NBAND, despite its length and structure; I'm sure there's something in the sources that made it miss out, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Can anyone remind me exactly why? Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2

00:38, 2 May 2024 review of submission by 2409:40F3:1019:8863:8000:0:0:0

Can you give reason by explaining it. It also contain much references. Sun Neo is a new channel launched, you can get information on search engines. 2409:40F3:1019:8863:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking, but this draft has been rejected and will not therefore be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

00:56, 2 May 2024 review of submission by Edcous

Per User talk:Clearfrienda, suggested that if I wanted a second opinion on the article, I should request it here.

The question is if there are enough in-depth references for the term God Committee to prove notability. There are 4 major ones included: John Hopkins University, the Baylor College of Medicine, the American Enterprise Institute, and the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics.

Please let me know what you think. Edcous (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edcous: I don't want to 'overrule' another reviewer's assessment, but I can tell you that if this came up before me I would probably accept it. The sources do seem pretty extensive, and some of them cite further sources discussing the same concept. That said, the concept does appear to go by different names – 'god committee', 'god squad', 'god panel', possibly others – so whether 'god committee' is the best one to use, I don't know (although now that the film The God Committee is out, it might become the one). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing. The other reviewer explicitly told me I could ask here for an additional opinion (if you look at the talk page) “You could also ask at the AfC help desk to get another reviewer's assesment sooner”. Should I resubmit it for another review then, or can you just approve it? Edcous (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on this. Edcous (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:35, 2 May 2024 review of submission by Diatom.phage

The Article subject in draft prefers a shorter version of name lately. I used published information on artist which supported Elizabeth, and I so Iisted Beth as and alternate in introduction. I come to find out in my research that Beth is her current preferred name. There IS a name space conflict with Elizabeth Goodfellow, but not with Beth Goodfellow. 

Diatom.phage (talk) 01:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
uh...what should I/we/us do? Diatom.phage (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Diatom.phage: I can't comment on what this person's 'correct' name is, nor can I speak for other reviewers, but when I accept an article like this I would publish it on a title that corresponds to the way the name is written at the start of the lead. So if you write Elizabeth ('Beth') Goodfellow, I'd place it at Elizabeth Goodfellow (musician), whereas if you show her name as Beth (Elizabeth) Goodfellow, I'd go for Beth Goodfellow. Does that help at all? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This helps. I started it as Elizabeth Goodfellow, so I have to navigate the unknown to me space of changing it to Beth (Elizabeth) Goodfellow. Your perspective gets me part of the way down the road. Very kind. Diatom.phage (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:54, 2 May 2024 review of submission by Antwan123123

finished edit Antwan123123 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antwan123123: okay. Did you have a question you wanted to ask? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yea, i updated the references, was wondering if they are good enough or should i add more Antwan123123 (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antwan123123: I'm not going to do a full source analysis here, as that would pretty much amount to a review, and the draft has already been resubmitted so it will get a review sooner or later anyway. However, I can tell you a couple of things. There is too much unreferenced content, given that this is an article on a living person (WP:BLP). For example, where does all the info in the first paragraph of the 'Biography' section come from? And what source gives this person's DOB? Also, you cannot cite (ref #3) Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. And YouTube is user-generated, and therefore not considered reliable (it could be, if the clip is from a reputable publisher and included in their own channel, but I don't think someone named 'HistoryLover12345678' quite cuts it!). China Daily also doesn't have the greatest reputation as a source, being basically a mouthpiece of the CCP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Actually, now that I've done all that, I might as well decline the draft, to save another reviewer having to repeat what I've done. No comment on notability, declined purely for the quality of some of the sources, and the insufficient citations throughout. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok thank you! how many more references do you recommend? Antwan123123 (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antwan123123: as many as are required to appropriately support the information. In a BLP, every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations (immediately following the statement, not way down at the bottom of a long paragraph) to reliable published sources, or else removed. This means in practice that just about every sentence you write must be backed up by such a source, because if it's not a material statement, it's just filler and waffle, and should be cut out anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:24, 2 May 2024 review of submission by AC1are

Just wondering what the hold up is on publishing this article? AC1are (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AC1are: I don't know that there's a hold-up as such, just a backlog of drafts. As it says on top of the draft, reviews "may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,477 pending submissions waiting for review." Please be patient, thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks! AC1are (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:36, 2 May 2024 review of submission by A.Atig

Hello, I would like to know where I could get help on getting this draft reviewed so that I can enhance it and make sure it gets published. Thank you A.Atig (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Atig: it will be reviewed (again), once a reviewer gets around to it. You only resubmitted it a moment ago. Please be patient, we have 2.5k drafts just like yours awaiting review also. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer.
I am conscious of the fact that there are many articles pending review. What I meant was where can I get help to improve the quality of the article, sources etc from experienced writer? Maybe someone who can help me expand it a bit more. Is there such a place for finding this kind of help? A.Atig (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't help with co-authors on this board; you could try the more general Help Desk. I would just suggest that you wait for feedback from the reviewer so you know specifically what to change, if needed. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an alternate account for you? This account has never edited this draft. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Cedric Koukjian has no evidence of passing the criteria at WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG? Theroadislong (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:28, 2 May 2024 review of submission by Gabbellaokeeffee

Hi there,

Can someone help me with how I can edit the name of a page?

Thank you in advance! Gabbellaokeeffee (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbellaokeefee I will shortly move it so that it is in Draft space and not your sandbox- though the particular title of a draft is not that relevant until the draft is accepted. Changing a title requires a page move, which new accounts can't do immediately. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed it at Draft:FileCloud. I am wondering if you have a connection to this company. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:59, 2 May 2024 review of submission by Eminatore

Hi there,

my draft article Draft:Collisional-Radiative Modeling has been rejected because of missing resources. However, there are three adequate resources. My question is if the first paragraph is fine? I could add one two resources for the last paragraph? Would that be enough to get it accepted? Thanks for helping a newbie. Eminatore (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eminatore I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. You have sources that describe what this modeling is, but no sources that describe what makes it notable. 331dot (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Umakant Bhalerao Why was the reason not notability then? Would it be accepted if I add a sentence after the first one like 'This plasma radiation physics is critical for the diagnosis and simulation of astrophysical and nuclear fusion plasma.' I would cite source [1] for this. Eminatore (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not clear on how that makes this topic notable enough for a standalone article- perhaps as part of nuclear fusion, plasma, or some other article? It could be that this topic is just too far above my pay grade, but I do see that the last paragraph is completely unsourced. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I integrate my article to the Plasma Modeling article and add two references for the last paragraph. Thanks for helping. Eminatore (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 2 May 2024 review of submission by 202.134.148.121

Hello, edited page according to previous messages but still not accepted. 202.134.148.121 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't, as the draft was rejected. Please see the message left by the reviewer; it appears that this organization is simply not notable as Wikipedia uses the term. 331dot (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:04, 2 May 2024 review of submission by Thetruthseeker12

I need to ask a question. A person declined my submission and said that most of my references are links to songs. So do I delete all the links to songs and only keep the links to news and sites? Which would only make me have 17 references. Thetruthseeker12 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thetruthseeker12 it isn't the quantity of references that make a good article, it is the quality. Three really strong references that follow the golden rule are much preferred to 17 poor quality references.
For your draft: yes, remove all the Apple Music references. Then see what that leaves you, and check if the references that are left prove this person is notable under WP:NMUSICIAN. Qcne (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:12, 2 May 2024 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:A771:4E66:3C57:BE85

Cannot submit for review unless additional references, styles, and paragraphs with over 100 words. Please add additional references, styles, and paragraphs with over 100 words, and then try to submit for review again. 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:A771:4E66:3C57:BE85 (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP Editor, did you have a question? Qcne (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 2 May 2024 review of submission by Diatom.phage

Hi- I added more refs to this draft subsequent to the initial rejection. I read the musician notability requirements page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines

and feel that she meets the requirements and so on the Talk page for the draft made an argument for article status. That said, I also read TONS of Wikipedia articles on notability and see that it is a complex issue. I think I need advice. I don't want to bomb with references. Goodfellow is a highly desired sideman that I discovered after seeing she drums with every new musician I find. She is listed on Wikipedia pages for several musician as a member on a record or tour member, but lacks her own page. THANK YOU in advance Diatom.phage (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 3

00:44, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Eden Benefit Jooda

I want to make this article better in order for it not to be declined again Eden Benefit Jooda (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove previous declines and comments. I have restored them for you. —Wasell(T) 08:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eden Benefit Jooda Thank you for expressing the intent to do so. This is a help desk, though. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

01:28, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Johnofred9

Why was it rejected Johnofred9 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting blocked for self promotion. Please see user talk for more info. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

03:24, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Maqsood Ahmed bhurgri

Hi I am the student i upload my articl for assignment but my artical was rejected but why Maqsood Ahmed bhurgri (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not a potential article, it is a personal reflection or essay, with zero indpendent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 07:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maqsood Ahmed bhurgri: We don't accept pontifications. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:32, 3 May 2024 review of submission by 2601:647:CD02:32B0:7D29:658F:2F93:A36F

The page says that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for music and The neutrality of this article is disputed. Multiple footnotes have been added in an attempt to solve the issues. How are adjustments evaluated so that the page edits are accepted? 2601:647:CD02:32B0:7D29:658F:2F93:A36F (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karlton Hester was accepted 7 years ago this page is for draft article help. Theroadislong (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:51, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Kingofports

Sir, i need your help to publish this article. I can create more content around 500 words as well. Let me know if that helps. Kingofports (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft has been rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:24, 3 May 2024 review of submission by 2C0F:F4C0:2316:2CE8:55AD:C2B9:191:92ED

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people).

Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Any help fixing the above, please

I would like to get the article published.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mandisi_Dyantyis

Thanks 

2C0F:F4C0:2316:2CE8:55AD:C2B9:191:92ED (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BURDEN. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IP Editor.
You need to prove this person is notable under our musician notability critiera. Qcne (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:58, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Md Rakib Hasan Rasel

I want submit this Md Rakib Hasan Rasel (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Md Rakib Hasan Rasel I have submitted it for you, it is now in the review pile. Reviewing may take 2 months or more. Qcne (talk) 10:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:50, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Patrick CecilF

I don't understand why this item is not eligible, with all sources cited. Patrick CecilF (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick CecilF It is a hard requirement that articles must be referenced using reliable sources, and biographies must have in-line citations throughout the text for every statement. Please see WP:VERIFY and then follow the tutorial at WP:INTREFVE.
Peter may be notable for inclusion in Wikipedia but as you have provided no references it is impossible to tell.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:24, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Saifkhan062

Please Guide me How Can i publish my first Page Saifkhan062 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saifkhan062 it was deleted for being unambiguous promotion, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Please read carefully the messages on your User Talk Page. Qcne (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:19, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Millie Yang

Never written an article before, I think I'm finished and unsure of what to do next. Is tone/citations correct? Thanks! Millie Yang (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Millie Yang: Literally every claim needs a source, no exceptions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:12, 3 May 2024 review of submission by BloxxerWhat

Hi uh, i submitted a article and it got declined. I'm dissapointed. Why is this? I'm also a new one, so this is very dissapointing. Why did i get rejected? Just asking. BloxxerWhat (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BloxxerWhat: No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Kamerio, or Kamer is something you made up yesterday, clearly it is not notable and has been correctly rejected. Theroadislong (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:42, 3 May 2024 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:DDCA:660F:E88F:E86F

Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Add more websites for references, more styles, and more paragraphs with over 100 words, and then try to submit for review again. 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:DDCA:660F:E88F:E86F (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A mere timeline of disparate events in a bulleted-list fashion is not going to be an acceptable article. There needs to be something there besides just listing them off; you need to give details in prose based on whatever information reliable sources provide. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly yes. :( BloxxerWhat (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Manveerdulay

Thoughts on the submission now? Manveerdulay (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manveerdulay I think it was rejected, which is pretty much final. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why though? I was able to show the legitimacy/necessity of the page for the subject. 2604:3D08:6184:DE00:6850:6ED7:F8A0:4BEF (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Manveerdulay (please log in when replying). I rejected this back in November - if you feel the draft has substantially changed since November, please go to my User Talk Page and start a new conversation with me, and provide the three best sources that prove notability under WP:NPOET. I will then take another look and review again. Qcne (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 3 May 2024 review of submission by 172.77.252.52

Because 172.77.252.52 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected due to repeated submissions without making any material improvements to the content and will not be considered further. No sources, no article, no debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:40, 3 May 2024 review of submission by Bree Khahlisi

My article keeps getting rejected because of untraceable sources or inline citations. Can someone please help me with that. Bree Khahlisi (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft User:Bree Khahlisi/sandbox does not show how they are notable in Wikipedia terms. Search.Yahoo is not a suitable source for anything. The awards are not sourced. The tone is not appropriate, “Mogote Wa Poko talks for the people. The broken hearted, the happiest etc” for example is meaningless marketing fluff. See WP:YFA for further help Theroadislong (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

01:50, 4 May 2024 review of submission by 49.204.111.73

the above article is correct made as per the current development but still the wikki have declined it i request for assistance 

49.204.111.73 (talk) 01:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have one source, which is merely a timetable. Even if it were an unimpeachable source, one source by itself cannot support an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 06:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

04:35, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Johirkhanarif

Please Approved this Article, this is a cricketer article. Johirkhanarif (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johirkhanarif please be patient. Drafts are reviewed in no particular order, and there are currently over 2500 drafts submitted for review. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johirkhanarif, the references now in the draft do not show that this person is notable. Being listed in a sports database is not significant coverage. When notability has challenged by an editor acting in good faith, then it is incumbent on you to convince reviewers that the person is WP:PERSON as Wikipedia defines that term. You have work to do. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okk, thanks Johirkhanarif (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:25, 4 May 2024 review of submission by DarkTwentyFive

Hey there! I'm new to Wikipedia and recently tried making my own autobiographical page. However, it got declined due to insufficient reliable sources. As I'm not that famous online, most of my supporting documents are from GitHub repositories that I've created referring to me.

Any tips on where I should the supporting sources and what they should be? DarkTwentyFive (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait sorry, I accidentally put the wrong URL. My article is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ruben_Roy DarkTwentyFive (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Ruben Roy has zero independent, reliable sources, they are what we base articles on. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:16, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Genifferave

It has been quite some time since I submitted this article for review. Appreciate some feedback. Thanks. Genifferave (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genifferave Your draft is submitted and pending. As noted at the top of your draft, there are many drafts awating review, and reviews are conducted in no particular order by volunteers. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:49, 4 May 2024 review of submission by QamarSiddiqui07

why you are rejecting my page.? QamarSiddiqui07 (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason for rejection of my page. QamarSiddiqui07 (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QamarSiddiqui07 The reason was left at the top of the page, "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not social media for people to tell about themselves. If you intend to be a Wikipedia contributor, you may use your user page(User:QamarSiddiqui07) to tell limited information about yourself in the context of you as a Wikipedia contributor(but for your security please consider carefully how much personal information you want displayed in this very public forum), though not anything and everything about yourself. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:07, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Bhairava Raama

how can i create my wikipedia page. im a writer and director in kannada film industry. Bhairava Raama (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are strongly advised to not do so, please see the autobiography policy. YouTube is not generally an acceptable source. Any article about you must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, not what you want to say about yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:29, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Bhukya Gangadhar Naik

hello then how we should we have to write the article please suggest me tell me what exactly i have to improve in the article Bhukya Gangadhar Naik (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No improvement is possible, it has now been deleted. Please learn more about Wikipedia by reading WP:5P and using the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot we've had four of these weird sales-related drafts submitted - all today and all by new users. Are you able to shed any light?
Qcne (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to hazard a guess, it might be a non-WikiEd class who was told to put an essay on Wikipedia by an instructor who has no clue how Wikipedia works. This is why you co-ordinate with WikiEd first, people! —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 17:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. Qcne (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it. :) 331dot (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just rejected Draft:Sales Blunder, an odd mix of how-to-guide and neologism. And before that, rolled back the resubmission of the already-rejected Draft:Traits of a Successful salesperson. Wonder if these are part of the same activity, then? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 15:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a thread at AN about this; any further discussion about this should probably go there. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:06, 4 May 2024 review of submission by 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:E380:59DC:A938:B683

Contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Please do not resubmit the draft for review again unless you create a same list of power outages in article namespace. Thanks. 2607:FEA8:1F1D:8400:E380:59DC:A938:B683 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This draft has been rejected for the third time and will not be considered further. Don't try and twist what the reviewers have been saying; they said nothing about creating a similar list in mainspace and flat-out said "Do not submit this again."[emphasis added] If you submit this again, the odds are very good it will be taken to WP:Miscellany for deletion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:35, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Ruth Bader Yinzburg

Hi, my AFC was declined because the subject was not deemed notable enough. I cited two book reviews and a significant book award that the subject won. How much more material would I have to find for the subject to be deemed notable? Or is this one of those cases where it might make more sense to do a draft on the book, as opposed to the author. Or is the problem that wiki doesn’t consider the pen/Faulkner to be a major literary prize within the notability guidelines for authors? Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruth Bader Yinzburg: No, the issue is your sources are not in-line. For biographies of living people, you cannot just slap a references list on the end and call it good; you need to cite your sources at the end of every claim that a reasonable person could challenge. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 18:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have formatted the references to be inline for you, some more sourced content might help the reviewers. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I’ll see what other sources I can add. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sourced content and moved it to main space. Theroadislong (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It looks great, and now I know how much more these should be filled out. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:05, 4 May 2024 review of submission by 82.18.131.62

Hey! Trying to create a new page for a company called Pharmlogic and looking for any assistance and suggestions in how we can improve this so it's approved. 82.18.131.62 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a business directory where mere existence is sufficient for inclusion. There is nothing in this draft to suggest that the business is even remotely notable or noteworthy. You need to produce independent and reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of this business, to demonstrate notability per WP:NCORP.
You also need to disclose your conflict of interest (COI). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23:38, 4 May 2024 review of submission by Drxhemant

WHY THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE CAN'T BE SUBMITTED ? AS SUITABLE REFERENCES HAVE BEEN ENCLOSED

"DR. HEMANT JAISINGH" Drxhemant (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your self-promotional autobiography has been rejected and will not be considered further. Cullen328 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 5

05:48, 5 May 2024 review of submission by 2601:589:4300:3E61:A571:99F7:A0FD:8EF3

Hello. I am creating a page for a graphic designer with a notable 50 year career. How do I create it without using his website biography. [1]2601:589:4300:3E61:A571:99F7:A0FD:8EF3 (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that someone is notable isn't enough, you need to provide evidence of this. They need to satisfy either the general WP:GNG or the special WP:ARTIST guideline. Both require independent and reliable sources; the person's own website is not enough. If that's the only source you have, then you need to search further, and if more and better sources still cannot be found then notability cannot be established.
That said, this draft has been submitted and is awaiting review, so you will find out in due course whether it has been accepted, and if not, why not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand 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.
As far as I can see, not one of the sources in the current version of the draft meets the triple criterion of being reliably published (blogs are not), being entirely independent of Kretzchmar, and containing significant coverage of him: see WP:42 for more about those criteria,.
The very first step in writing an article is to find those reliable, independent, substantial sources, because if you can't find them, then there is no point in spending any more time and effort on this article. ColinFine (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.hubertart.net/chapters-projects

06:54, 5 May 2024 review of submission by SouthPole5423

There is a problem with Wikipedia's reviewing system. When I write something a little incorrectly, the admins delete the page in 2 seconds, when I put an enormous amount of effort on an article, it doesn't even get looked over! I know that there are thousands of articles posted for review, but it is very irritating. So if you could please take a look at the article, it will be much appreciated, thank you. SouthPole5423 (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthPole5423: we don't do on-demand reviews here at the help desk; the draft has been submitted and will be reviewed when someone picks it up.
And no pages are deleted for something written "a little incorrectly". Or if you have evidence to the contrary, take it up through appropriate channels. (Spam is deleted on sight, but that's a different matter.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft Draft:Kishor Alo was deleted as blatant promotion. Yes, we do delete blatant promotion when identified. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

07:36, 5 May 2024 review of submission by Drxhemant

it has been edited...Now kindly approve it

Thank You with regards Drxhemant (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drxhemant: as explained already (and please don't start a new thread with each comment, just add to the previous one), your promotional autobio draft has been rejected, which means that it will not be considered further. You are also starting to veer dangerously close to the definition of promotion-only account, which may result in sanctioning. My advice, therefore, is to stop now, and focus on editing non-contentious topics in a non-promotional manner only. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drxhemant Please see WP:NOTWEBHOST. I suggest you place your biography on LinkedIn. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drxhemant Your sandbox has been deleted, Please do not seek to re-create it. Wikipedia is not for you to promote yourself. If you happen to be notable then someone else will document this 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:03, 5 May 2024 review of submission by 117.252.146.24

Why the article was rejected 117.252.146.24 (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it isn't suitable for publishing. If you're providing advice for sales people, please note that Wikipedia does not publish how-to-guides or instruction manuals, etc. If you're instead writing about the term or neologism 'sales blunder', you would need to show that it is notable in its own right, which wasn't shown in this draft. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11:47, 5 May 2024 review of submission by RobertoDelgado07

i was wondering if there was anything missing from my article that wasn´t good enough for me to get the wikipedia page so i can add it, and also i was told that i wrote the article in spanish, does that have anything to do with the decline? is it very relevant? if advised by you i will reedit the article on the spanish wikipedia and resubmit, do you recommend me to do so? RobertoDelgado07 (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RobertoDelgado07: first and foremost, it is in Spanish, whereas this is the English-language version of Wikipedia and we can therefore only accept content in English.
Secondly, there was no evidence that you are notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word.
And in any case, you shouldn't be writing about yourself in the first place; see WP:AUTOBIO.
HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, I'm not quite sure how this works. I think Wikipedia is an incredible platform to be a part of, due to its notoriety and the growth potential and reach it can offer my brand. As an independent content creator, I'm doing what I can to figure things out and manage myself on social media and handle everything on my own. I apologize in advance for the lack of professionalism. As I mentioned earlier, I'm handling things alone, so I have very little knowledge of how these things work. Nonetheless, thank you very much for your time and recommendations. If God permits it in the future and things are done right, it would be an honor for me to be part of Wikipedia. RobertoDelgado07 (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RobertoDelgado07 I apologize for being frank, but Wikipedia has zero interest in helping you to promote your brand. Wikipedia is not a form of social media. Our only interest is in summarizing what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about a topic, not what it wants to say about itself. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:00, 5 May 2024 review of submission by 182.182.127.226

Hey there, I want to work on this draft and then submit it for WP: Articles for creation. Kindly guide how can I submit it once I add citations in it? 182.182.127.226 (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting a rejected draft will involve speaking to the reviewer to convince them that enough has fundamentally changed about the draft to warrant its being resubmitted(as opposed to purely cosmetic changes/additions). In this case the reviewer is still active so they will be able to weigh in. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice.182.182.127.226 (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 5 May 2024 review of submission by NikolaiVektovich

I drafted this out of the remains of an older draft, but I'm unsure about it. I have sources, yet I'm not sure if including the explicit description of songs from the sources would meet WP:NOT. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

18:44, 5 May 2024 review of submission by GalacticalCosmics

Is there a way to completely delete the draft? I'm not going to work on it anymore. It was declined even though it has for citations than players like Callan Rydz so I'd rather not waste my time working on it.

Kind regards, GalacticalCosmics (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to delete it, you can just leave it, and it will get deleted after nobody has touched it for six months. But, if you want to, since nobody but you has made significant contributions to it, you can put {{db-author}} (including the double curly brackets) at the top, and an admin will come along and delete it. ColinFine (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my article seems to have been removed. What do I do and how to extract the content?

Hey people, my article seems to have been removed. What do I do and how to extract the content please? Max Elliott1 (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article do you mean? ColinFine (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the one that's removed ))(( 95.158.42.217 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you expect anybody to be able to find any information about it if you won't tell us what it was called? ColinFine (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karry G - that's the name of the page 95.158.42.214 (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Draft:Karry G? ColinFine (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! 95.158.42.214 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please only edit while logged in.
To find your contributions you should use the "Contributions" link at the top of any page while you are logged in. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20:09, 5 May 2024 review of submission by OrganizationTheory

Hi all! Looking for some advice. This draft was declined with the reason that the subject of the article didn't meet notability guidelines for academics/professors (WP:NPROF). But, as early as the first line, the article draft demonstrates using reliable sources that the professor is an endowed and named chair at Stony Brook University, which is a R1 university (the classification for universities with very high research output) and thus clearly meets notability Criterion 5. As the WP:NPROF page notes, only one notability criterion is needed for a professor to merit an article (although I do note other criteria on the talk page of the draft). So I'm not sure what to make of the reason for rejection. Any advice on how to proceed? Thanks in advance! OrganizationTheory (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OrganizationTheory: I agree, the named chair would seem to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC #5. I've marked a few things that require citations, but otherwise this should be good to go. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! Thank you so much for your prompt and very helpful response. I made all the changes you noted including moving the article to the appropriate name. How would you recommend I go about getting it published? Should I just resubmit or is there a quicker process now that an editor has looked it all over and ensured it meets academic notability criteria?
Updated link: Draft:Sthaneshwar Timalsina OrganizationTheory (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 5 May 2024 review of submission by WXSharkius

My page was not accepted for submission. I don't know what is wrong with it? WXSharkius (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WXSharkius: You created a draft for a fictional tornado that you made up. That kind of thing is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I left a message of your talk page for a better place to work on that kind of thing. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you. I was just curious, why is that so bad? WXSharkius (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WXSharkius: As the message says, it's contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Articles on this site are to be about well-documented topics that are Notable and verifiable. This would include real things and well-known fictional entities, but not stuff that random people just dreamt up. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WXSharkius: you write about a completely made-up topic in an encyclopaedia, and you need to ask "why is that so bad?" Seriously? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 6

02:20, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Ruth Bader Yinzburg

Hi, I was wondering how to turn the novel reviews and the long list of “best of the year” lists the novel mentioned in this article appears in into single footnotes that have a bulleted list of citations in them for readability purposes. So the footnote would say [1], and the linked citations would be bullet points for a series of reviews / a series of best book of the year lists. Thank you. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruth Bader Yinzburg: firstly, this is a question on general editing, not about the AfC process, therefore you should ask at the Teahouse or the general help desk. Secondly, I don't know that it's possible to do what (I think) you're describing; nor do I think it would be a good idea. And thirdly, reviews of a book this person wrote are arguably not all that relevant in a draft about the person, they belong rather in an article about the book. In any case, this draft has been resubmitted and is awaiting review, and as such matters don't have much or any bearing on the draft's chances of being accepted, I suggest leaving this for now and seeing how the review (and the ongoing MfD discussion) goes. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

06:07, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Sravanthi chekka

I have published a page on Sales pitch on 4th may but it is rejected and it is saying that it is not suitable. What does it mean not suitable Sravanthi chekka (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sravanthi chekka: your draft  Courtesy link: User:Sravanthi chekka/sandbox is a how-to-guide, which isn't something we publish here at Wikipedia.
Are you doing this as part of some sort of school or university assignment? We've seen a lot of drafts on similar subjects over the past few days. If so, I hate to tell you that your instructor has given you an impossible task! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

08:55, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 2003:E7:6705:A000:D594:3DDC:8B09:D41A

Can anybody help. Is something wrong with the references? I cant find anymore references about this film festival from the past. All references are independent and not from the website of this film festival. I dont know exactly what is wrong? 2003:E7:6705:A000:D594:3DDC:8B09:D41A (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see significant coverage, directly of the event in question, in multiple secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, books, TV and radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent of the source. This draft cites no such source, with the possible exception of the Taz article (and maybe the BZ one, at a pinch), which isn't enough. The rest of them are primary sources, apparent rehashes of material put out by the event organisers, non-reliable sources, and/or passing mentions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:38, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Ryry10 0

I'm trying to write myself a biography as a musician named GOOD NGHT. My submission was declined for 'lacking reliable resources'. I don't understand how to resolve this issue and require support. Ryry10 0 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryry10 0: are you writing about yourself, or a personal acquaintance? If so, it's not enough to write what you know about the subject, you need to be summarising what independent and reliable secondary sources have said about them, citing those sources against the information they have provided. Your draft has no such sources (or indeed, sources of any kind), and cannot therefore be accepted.
Also, the subject must be notable in Wikipedia terms to be published in the encyclopaedia. There is nothing in this draft to suggest that is the case.
And finally, if you are writing about yourself, don't - see WP:AUTOBIO for the reasons why. And if you're writing about a friend or family member, you have what's known as a conflict of interest (COI), which must be disclosed – see WP:COI. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:08, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 182.252.69.230

Bangladeshi Journalist 182.252.69.230 (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you have a question? Your draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. Some of the information seems to be fabricated, as the sources do not seem to mention this person at all. 331dot (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:18, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Diegoriccio98

Hi, I would like to ask if the critical issues, written by the last reviewer of this draft, remain in this latest version. I would also like to ask you to promptly highlight the parts that still need improvement. Diegoriccio98 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diegoriccio98: the first thing that jumps at me is that although this draft is meant to be a biography, it veers heavily into chemistry. I would suggest sticking much more closely to the topic. By all means mention his work and research interests, but don't elaborate on them too much. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13:30, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Shhrikantta

Dear Wiki

My name is Shrikanta Jilla, I have authored 2 books and co-authored 1 book. Today, I had to send a reply.

Wiki; the "Draft:Reckoning with the Vector Axe- I", have been written by me and it was declined for third time today, Wiki; one thing I want to make clear that the information regarding the book was passed by me, and first of all I authored that book, if I give adequate information about my book, then who will give?, I request you to accept the draft, since the information in the draft is about "my" book, I have adequate proofs like: website, blog, fandom, alternative publishing platform info. ,I would like a response from you, hoping for early replies.

Thank You Regards Shrikanta Jilla Shhrikantta (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shhrikantta.
Your draft fails our notability criteria for books. Wikipedia is a collection of topics that we deem "notable" by our notability criteria and you have not proven your book is notable.
Your draft also contravenes our neutral point of view policy. Please note that promotion of any kind is prohibited on Wikipedia. I have therefore tagged your article for deletion.
I would recommend finding a social media website - not Wikipedia - to promote your book.
Let me know if you have any questions. Qcne (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

14:39, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Tromaggot

Can anybody help. Is something wrong with the references? I cant find anymore references about this film festival from the past. All references are independent and not from the website of this film festival. I dont know exactly what is wrong? Tromaggot (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was answered above; please do not duplicate postings. Please place further comments in that existing section, instead of creating additional sections. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15:26, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Wolfboy8989

i wana rename my artical Wolfboy8989 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been deleted as a misuse of Wikipedia, this isn't a place for you to run a website allowing others to post materials. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:05, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Imoutofchoices

I believe that this topic is reasonably notable, as it is a page on the ZH Wikipedia, however, the topic has been rejected for concerns of notability, and lack of citations, however, I have modeled the citations in a way that resembles other published articles, such as the Muse Dash and Arcaea articles. Pleasehelp. Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imoutofchoices Each language Wikipedia is a separate project, all with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable here. The English Wikipedia tends to be stricter than others, especially in terms of notability. If this text is an acceptable article on the ZH Wikipedia, I suggest that you edit that version. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I did before was I took some of the sources of the ZH article and paraphrased the article, which is why there are some citations that are written in foreign languages Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Imoutofchoices: Different Wikipediae have different standards for notability and the reliability of choices, and the English-language Wikipedia tends to be one of the strictest ones. At a glance (and discounting the Chinese-language sources; automated translaton with those is unreliable) the only sources you really have are app stores, content-free profiles, and a YouTube video from an unverified channel. None of these are helpful sources. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be an example of a website that would be seen as reliable, as I said before, the Arcaea page has most of it's sources are App Stores and one actual article Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An independent game journalism website could be reliable, as long as it is fairly mainstream and the article is not being sponsored by Pigeon Games. Qcne (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been seeing articles from a website called lakevalor, is that a reliable spot? I usually edit on a school chromebook, so I don't usually have access to these sites on a daily basis Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lake Valor is a Pokémon forum? If so no you cannot use Forums, sorry. Qcne (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thank you! Imoutofchoices (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing to realise is 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.
The majority of sources - and all those used to establish notability - need to be wholly unconnected with the subject and its producers, distributors etc, as well as being reliable. ColinFine (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you did find a "reliable website" we assess sources not primarily on the outlet that publishes the source but on the character of the source itself. Kotaku is an acceptable source in most circumstances; the issue you have here is that you linked to a profile for the game on Kotaku (as opposed to one of its game reviews or journalistic articles), which has pretty much no information that can be cited. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 16:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

16:07, 6 May 2024 review of submission by 67.183.4.58

Can anyone provide more detail on why this submission was not accepted for publication? Here are the reasons I was given: in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject) reliable secondary independent of the subject

I included 3 reliable primary sources (published books), I am independent of the subject, and the article is entirely dedicated to it (not just a passing mention). Thanks for any guidance you can provide! 67.183.4.58 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:" portion). Remember to log in when posting. Your draft does little more than document the existence of this facility and describe its offerings; you instead need to summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about this facility, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19:06, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Crazytiger954

Having difficulty understanding what this article is lacking. I have cited a source, made references to external sources and links. The latest response was this individual does not meet the criteria for a page. He's an accomplished musician and has appeared on a major TV shows and performed in bands with major artists. Furthermore, this individual has an approved page for Wikipedia-Norwegian which was the inspiration for creating a page for en.wikipedia (https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Cheznovitz) Crazytiger954 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crazytiger954 Please know that each language Wikipedia is its own project, with their own editors and policies. What is acceptable on one version is not necessarily acceptable on another.
You only have one source, and many unsourced claims. Every substantive claim about a living person must have a source, see WP:BLP. An article must summarize multiple sources. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see the definition of a notable musician, which you must show he meets. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21:14, 6 May 2024 review of submission by Suhashini2024

Can you please let me know what needs to change for this to be accepted? Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suhashini2024: We can't accept text taken from elsewhere, and you have zero usable sources (all your sources have a connexion to the subject). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the speedy response. On my end, it states the content is still being reviewed. Can you kindly confirm? The content inputted has not been copied from elsewhere, rather gathered information from multiple websites. Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been deleted since as plagiarised and closely paraphrased from https://dornsife.usc.edu/profile/titus-galama/ . —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 21:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for letting me know. I just submitted a revised version. Kindly review and let me know if this is acceptable. Suhashini2024 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't submitted anything, you just added content to the deleted draft's talk page, and that content is thoroughly promotional. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I believe I resubmitted. Kindly confirm and let me know if I havnt. Please let me know the steps. Thank you. Suhashini2024 (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suhashini2024, in its current form, your draft is very poorly referenced and cannot be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for letting me know. I added citations. Hope I did a better job. Suhashini2024 (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the exact same sources I called out as being unusable in the previous iteration of the draft, all of which were written on his behalf by organisations he has ties to.. Such sources are useless for notability as Wikipedia defines it and for the more rigourous sourcing requirements for content about living people. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v AE thread summaries 23:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 7

09:29, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Aswin012

hii, i have created a article based on human resource management software now it has been removed from the review desk. what was the reason for the rejection Aswin012 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aswin012 The draft is in your sandbox, so I fixed your post to link to it. Please examine the message left by the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

10:29, 7 May 2024 review of submission by Artem S. Tashkinov

  • The translation layer which now supports over 20K Windows titles under Linux is not "noteworthy"?
  • A software title which made Linux an actual gaming platform?
  • Something which is sponsored and used by Valve Corporation to enable gaming on Steam Deck?

OK, then, screw it! It's not my issue that "esteemed" media doesn't want to write about it. It's sad but I'll just let it expire if no one volunteers to make this article WP-compliant. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&oldid=1222685952"